Very proud of my state. In comparison to much of the rest of the country we are rockin when it comes to employment. We've even got Texas beat. Explore the data:
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&hl=en&dl=en&idim=city:PA400250:PA400100&fdim_y=seasonality:U#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:U&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:ST320000:ST340000:ST180000:ST090000:ST060000:ST110000:ST400000:ST450000:ST440000&ifdim=country&tstart=734158800000&tend=1375851600000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
Slow recovery for most of the country, but we're back to 2002 numbers. Also looking at the volume of job postings in the Tulsa World, I can't imagine a better economy to live in. Of course there is always room for improvement, and we can't let the health of our City and State deter us from making Oklahoma an even more attractive place for investment.
Doesn't give the full picture. You could be losing people faster than your losing jobs and have your unemployment rate go down. Conversely, another area, like Austin say, could be growing jobs at a much much faster rate than Tulsa, but the population increase even faster with the net effect of unemployment not going down as fast or even ticking up for a time.
Or, what might be the case is that the population is barely trickling up, or remaining virtually steady, you lose some high paying jobs and gain a few more low paying jobs. Wouldn't necessarily say that equals a strong recipe for growth.
Unemployment rate looks good, but it's not showing the whole picture. Would really like to see what the median/mode income levels are, jobs growth rate, and population growth rate, to paint a truer picture of how well we are doing compared to other places.
Just ran across this interactive. Shows Oklahomas projected growth rate to be slightly below average for this year and only adding around 25,000 jobs for the whole state. Also it looks like the "rate of growth rate increase" is speeding up in more areas so we might even find ourselves slipping further down the list as the economy recovers.
http://www.pewstates.org/research/data-visualizations/top-states-for-job-creation-in-2014-85899531089
Quote from: TheArtist on January 07, 2014, 01:27:13 PM
Just ran across this interactive. Shows Oklahomas projected growth rate to be slightly below average for this year and only adding around 25,000 jobs for the whole state. Also it looks like the "rate of growth rate increase" is speeding up in more areas so we might even find ourselves slipping further down the list as the economy recovers.
http://www.pewstates.org/research/data-visualizations/top-states-for-job-creation-in-2014-85899531089
I couldn't locate the backup data or methodology employed for the graphic you posted. I would assume it is based on something, but there is no data, so lets look at existing present & historical data to answer your questions above.
Statistically our current population growth is 1.7% from 2010-2012 according to the census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html), and that would indicate that our job growth is keeping up quite well. Using your example, Austin only had a 0.7% population increase in that same time, and only maintained a slightly lower unemployment rate at 4.8% instead of Tulsa's 4.9%.
We do have 16.6%, as of 2012, living under the poverty level, but that is typical of more rural/agricultural states, and lower incomes in such areas are counterbalanced with a far lower cost of living. More Oklahomans own their own home at 67.5% than the national average of 65.5% and such equity is extremely important when it comes to financial security and retirement.
Median income in our state is $44,891 with a mean income of $60,788 according to the same census data (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk) cited above. When you look at families, the dynamic changes, with median family income of $56,068, these numbers have grown from a $40,709 median in 2000 (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk). It would seem that our job growth, economic growth, as well and individual and family income growth have grown at a very healthy pace.
I see all of this as very good news and indication that economically the people and businesses in our state are making good decisions and enjoying the economic freedom necessary for growth. We also seem to have state and local governments willing to step out of the way, or at least restrict interference with private sector forces.
. . .and this was just published today!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/2014-most-affordable-cities_n_4554763.html
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1548043/thumbs/o-BEST-BUDGET-CITIES-570.jpg?1)
Quote from: Gaspar on January 07, 2014, 03:02:07 PM
I couldn't locate the backup data or methodology employed for the graphic you posted. I would assume it is based on something, but there is no data, so lets look at existing present & historical data to answer your questions above.
Statistically our current population growth is 1.7% from 2010-2012 according to the census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html), and that would indicate that our job growth is keeping up quite well. Using your example, Austin only had a 0.7% population increase in that same time, and only maintained a slightly lower unemployment rate at 4.8% instead of Tulsa's 4.9%.
Was surprised at your population growth for Austin versus Tulsa or Ok. so did a check per your link.
I think you might have accidentally looked at the wrong #s.
Tulsa from April 1 2010 to July 1 2012 .5%
Austin from April 1 2010 to July 1 2012 6.6%
Then there is this that I have posted on another thread earlier, shows us ranking right up (down) there with Detroit in Job growth. Course I know this one can be a case of "cherry picking" the start and stop for the data but the mantra has always been "Well sure Austin and Denver etc. were booming before the recession but we did pretty well and weren't hit as hard". Thing is when you take the time during and just around the recession, on average, they are still doing better. Sure we no longer have the boom and bust cycle, but over all we are still almost standing still teetering on the edge. I really hope this is changing and we will see more robust growth. But, if we do not, even though we may be inching forward, competitive wise that will make us still fall further and further behind.
.
5 Year Private Sector Job Growth
(From Business Journals "Oct 2013 Economic Index")
Tulsa -3.30%
OKC +3.29%
Salt Lake City +2.96
Nashville +7.92
Austin +10.9%
Denver +2.01%
Charlotte +1.07%
Little Rock -0.25%
Jacksonville -0.82%
Dallas-FW +5.63%
Columbus +3.40%
Buffalo NY +1.11%
Omaha -0.36%
Detroit -1.10%
Quote from: TheArtist on January 07, 2014, 05:24:32 PM
Was surprised at your population growth for Austin versus Tulsa or Ok. so did a check per your link.
I think you might have accidentally looked at the wrong #s.
Tulsa from April 1 2010 to July 1 2012 .5%
Austin from April 1 2010 to July 1 2012 6.6%
Tulsa County is 1.7%, Travis County (Austin) is 7%
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 07, 2014, 05:51:54 PM
Tulsa County is 1.7%, Travis County (Austin) is 7%
Tulsa metro pop: 937,471 (2010) - 951,800 (2012) = + 1.54% growth
source: The United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Quote from: TheArtist on January 07, 2014, 12:45:43 PM
to paint a truer picture of how well we are doing compared to other places.
What is it with you and "painting pictures"? Makes me think you must be an artist or something.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 07, 2014, 05:51:54 PM
Tulsa County is 1.7%, Travis County (Austin) is 7%
Yes I was apparently looking at Austin county instead of Travis. However Artest's numbers are far off from actual census numbers. I'll need to review the data behind his source. Most likely it is based again on an estimate and forecast.
Either way, population growth does not correspond to opportunity or economic prosperity. I spent a good deal of time in Austin last year and was quite surprised by the high number of homeless on nearly every urban corner. I was also amazed by the commercial development all over the city.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 06:04:11 AM
Yes I was apparently looking at Austin county instead of Travis. However Artest's numbers are far off from actual census numbers. I'll need to review the data behind his source. Most likely it is based again on an estimate and forecast.
Either way, population growth does not correspond to opportunity or economic prosperity. I spent a good deal of time in Austin last year and was quite surprised by the high number of homeless on nearly every urban corner. I was also amazed by the commercial development all over the city.
The 0.5% population increase Artist noted comes from your link if you use the city selector and select, of course, Tulsa City. Austin is in Travis County.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40/4075000.html
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 06:04:11 AM
Either way, population growth does not correspond to opportunity or economic prosperity. I spent a good deal of time in Austin last year and was quite surprised by the high number of homeless on nearly every urban corner. I was also amazed by the commercial development all over the city.
It definitely can when your incomes are higher and your unemployment rate is still low. Looked at a photo of their downtown the other day and there are about 12 large cranes in the air right now for new high-rise buildings for office and living, plus dozens of other projects under construction right now. Makes us look like we are standing still, even with our recent spate of small hotel developments. Last time I was in Dallas about a month ago I counted 14 large construction cranes just along my way out.
Was reading another article yesterday about what areas are growing the best and they noted that some of the important factors are amenities like transit and a good urban environment, aka pedestrian/transit friendly cores (exceptions being Texas cities like Dallas which are growing for other reasons). Meanwhile we have STILL not implemented any urban zoning to allow for and promote good urban areas (Even in our Downtown!) and it seems our Mayor is actually against that and is promoting actions completely contrary to the new Comprehensive Plans findings, and is apparently pushing back even the meager BRT for the Brookside corridor, till the end of the funding cycle (perhaps with the hopes of letting it die or killing it?). We have also not seen any changes to our downtown zoning to encourage good quality pedestrian friendly/transit friendly corridors in a coordinated manner (Like Denver has done as only one example). We have discussed the "Main Mall" example where those cities that implemented urban zoning along their Main Malls saw them thrive and boom, whereas the cities, like Tulsa, that did not, saw those areas wither and be destroyed. We have been good at building and zoning for suburban/car oriented type growth, but are doing nothing, or the opposite, to zone for urban/transit oriented growth. And more and more we have watched the trend over the last couple of decades showing that more and more people are wanting to live and work in urban/pedestrian/transit friendly areas. And that trend is accelerating with more examples of this happening...
http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/1CENSUS010514gr_online.png
While places like Tulsa that are not promoting and zoning for good urban growth are growing at a much slower pace or are stagnant.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 08, 2014, 07:57:17 AM
It definitely can when your incomes are higher and your unemployment rate is still low. Looked at a photo of their downtown the other day and there are about 12 large cranes in the air right now for new high-rise buildings for office and living, plus dozens of other projects under construction right now. Makes us look like we are standing still, even with our recent spate of small hotel developments. Last time I was in Dallas about a month ago I counted 14 large construction cranes just along my way out.
Was reading another article yesterday about what areas are growing the best and they noted that some of the important factors are amenities like transit and a good urban environment, aka pedestrian/transit friendly cores. Meanwhile we have STILL not implemented any urban zoning to allow for and promote good urban areas (Even in our Downtown!) and it seems our Mayor is actually against that and is promoting actions completely contrary to the new Comprehensive Plans findings, and is apparently pushing back even the meager BRT for the Brookside corridor, till the end of the funding cycle (perhaps with the hopes of letting it die or killing it?). We have also not seen any changes to our downtown zoning to encourage good quality pedestrian friendly/transit friendly corridors in a coordinated manner (Like Denver has done as only one example). We have discussed the "Main Mall" example where those cities that implemented urban zoning along their Main Malls saw them thrive and boom, whereas the cities, like Tulsa, that did not, saw those areas wither and be destroyed. We have been good at building and zoning for suburban/car oriented type growth, but are doing nothing, or the opposite, to zone for urban/transit oriented growth. And more and more we have watched the trend over the last couple of decades showing that more and more people are wanting to live and work in urban/pedestrian/transit friendly areas. And that trend is accelerating with more examples of this happening...
http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/1CENSUS010514gr_online.png
I think there is a chicken/egg debate though among planners. That is to say, "if we build it, will they come?" V.S. "When they come, should we build it."
I think Tulsa's conservative approach has been to develop small urban and pedestrian pockets of development, and as those succeed, or sometimes fail, that dictates what is built next, and allows the community to dictate the speed and direction of development.
Currently we are enjoying a nice spike in urban development downtown, and as that continues to be successful the push for a more pedestrian oriented community will become more successful.
I cringe when people point to Austin as something Tulsa should aspire to.
Their rapid growth has way over-stressed their transportation infrastructure and traffic is a nightmare no matter where you go in the Austin metro now. It's one of the last places I'd care to live right now. Five years ago, wouldn't have been a bad place.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 08, 2014, 10:07:33 AM
I cringe when people point to Austin as something Tulsa should aspire to.
Their rapid growth has way over-stressed their transportation infrastructure and traffic is a nightmare no matter where you go in the Austin metro now. It's one of the last places I'd care to live right now. Five years ago, wouldn't have been a bad place.
Fun place to get drunk, but that's about it. I have friends with businesses down there and all they do is grumble and moan. Austin has a great arts community though, as well as a good food culture. They have become a magnet for conventions, but do a couple there and you realize that getting anywhere is a pain. I was there in July of last year and we had lots of rain. Unfortunately, unless you get to a parking spot at around 7am, you are hard pressed to find a spot close to where you need to be, and due to weather, myself and my colleagues looked like wet dogs for most of the week. The views from most of the bars is very entertaining. They have bicycle cops that act like shepherds for all of the homeless (and there are lots of very eccentric homeless) in clumps on each corner, bumming cigarettes and asking for money. When the cops aren't corralling their herd, they are attempting to manage the drunks flowing in and out of the bars. The drinking culture seems to enjoy lots of shots, mostly Jägermeister variants, so much so that walking through a crowd, all you smell is cigarettes Jäger and pachouli. 20 years ago, this would have been heaven. I guess I've grown out of that.
Had some of the best Guacamole I've ever had though at a little place called El Ceviche Grill off Jacinto Blvd. Still trying to duplicate it to this day!
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 10:32:14 AM
Fun place to get drunk, but that's about it. I have friends with businesses down there and all they do is grumble and moan. Austin has a great arts community though, as well as a good food culture. They have become a magnet for conventions, but do a couple there and you realize that getting anywhere is a pain. I was there in July of last year and we had lots of rain. Unfortunately, unless you get to a parking spot at around 7am, you are hard pressed to find a spot close to where you need to be, and due to weather, myself and my colleagues looked like wet dogs for most of the week. The views from most of the bars is very entertaining. They have bicycle cops that act like shepherds for all of the homeless (and there are lots of very eccentric homeless) in clumps on each corner, bumming cigarettes and asking for money. When the cops aren't corralling their herd, they are attempting to manage the drunks flowing in and out of the bars. The drinking culture seems to enjoy lots of shots, mostly Jägermeister variants, so much so that walking through a crowd, all you smell is cigarettes Jäger and pachouli. 20 years ago, this would have been heaven. I guess I've grown out of that.
Had some of the best Guacamole I've ever had though at a little place called El Ceviche Grill off Jacinto Blvd. Still trying to duplicate it to this day!
I'm in Austin all the time, and my sister in law lives there just South of the river West of Congress. (In the heart of SoCo!) I love the place. When we were looking to move from the Dallas area 10 years ago, it came down to Tulsa and Austin. It's still a toss-up to us whether we made the right call, but we definitely like being in Tulsa.
But there's really no way for Tulsa to "become Austin". We don't have the state capitol here and we don't have a 50K person university. Those two bedrock institutions make Austin what it is. As for the vagrants and drunks, stay off sixth street. There are so many great restaurants and bars in other areas (check out the Continental Club on SoCo, or the Saxon Pub on South Lamar. Always great local bands.) And I agree with you Gaspar, some of the best Mexican food in the world! Nice I've got to find a reason to get back down there...
Ok, so I looked as some real numbers for growth and compared us to four other cities. Oklahoma City, DFW, Austin, since it's been mentioned here, and DC because it's the highest income metro in the nation and one of the fastest growing. This comparison isn't against the average, all these other cities are some of, if not the best performing in the entire nation.
These numbers are from 2010 to 2012, which is the latest available. Income numbers are from the BEA and I'm using US Census MSA numbers for population.
Tulsa's MSA population grew 1.5% over those two years, from 937,478 to 951,880. Total GDP for the metro grew by 6.8% or by 5.2% per capita. Average Income per resident for Tulsa was $47,812 in 2010 and $50,312 in 2012.
Oklahoma City's population growth was better but per capita income overall and income growth was worse. OKC's MSA population grew 3.5% over those two years, from 1,252,987 to 1,296,565. Total GDP for the metro grew by 8.6% or by only 4.9% per capita. Average Income per resident for Oklahoma City was $46,560 in 2010 and $48,851 in 2012.
Austin is just booming, in all areas. Austin's MSA population grew 6.9% over those two years to 1,834,303. This is the highest growth for any large metro area in the entire country. Total GDP for the metro grew by 22.6% or by 14.7% per capita. Average Income per resident for Austin was $53,795 in 2012, a bit higher than Tulsa and Oklahoma City.
Dallas is also of course always booming. Dallas' MSA population grew 4.3% over those two years to 1,834,303. This is the highest growth for all very large metro areas over five million people. Total GDP for the metro grew by 12.4% or by 7.8% per capita. Average Income per resident for Dallas was $62,728 in 2012, a lot higher than Tulsa and Oklahoma City.
Washington DC is the highest income metro in the nation, and is also currently booming. The DC area's MSA population grew 4.0% over those two years to 1,834,303. This is the second highest growth for all very large metro areas after Dallas. Total GDP for the metro grew by 21.4% or by 16.7% per capita. Average Income per resident was $76,572 in 2012.
We are not shrinking in population or in economic activity. In economic activity actually we compare favorable to all these high growth cities on a per capita basis. We just need to grow more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/drilldown.cfm?reqid=70&stepnum=11&AreaTypeKeyGdp=5&GeoFipsGdp=XX&ClassKeyGdp=naics&ComponentKey=200&IndustryKey=1&YearGdp=2012&YearGdpBegin=-1&YearGdpEnd=-1&UnitOfMeasureKeyGdp=Levels&RankKeyGdp=1&Drill=1&nRange=5
I don't wan't us to be Austin per say, but when you talk about the congestion and such I am reminded of the time their city transit planners came to Tulsa and said "Here is what we did wrong and wish wish wish we could go back and do right. Tulsa is is at just the right point in it's development where it can make choices now that will make things so much easier and better down the road. Pleeease don't make the mistakes we did. Here are the lessons we learned too late.".... and then we continue to ignore their advice. Thing is when your a slow growing city like we are, the regrets can take longer to fix for you can't just rapidly grow your way out of them.
As for this....
"I think there is a chicken/egg debate though among planners. That is to say, "if we build it, will they come?" V.S. "When they come, should we build it."
I think Tulsa's conservative approach has been to develop small urban and pedestrian pockets of development, and as those succeed, or sometimes fail, that dictates what is built next, and allows the community to dictate the speed and direction of development.
Currently we are enjoying a nice spike in urban development downtown, and as that continues to be successful the push for a more pedestrian oriented community will become more successful."
I am really glad to see downtown slowly growing again. My concern is that we are not zoning for urban/pedestrian friendly/transit friendly growth downtown or anywhere else for that matter. Right now what we have is a scattershot approach, little bit here, little bit there and we cross our fingers hoping something sticks. Kind of like our "Arts District" we don't really have a strip where there are a lot of galleries, we have a few here, a few in this area, etc. but not that critical mass draw type thing.
When I was in London you really notice every different section or the city has its "High Street" or main street. In many other cities in England they have the "Kings Street", again lots of shops and restaurants along a long strip. In Denver they zoned certain streets in their downtown to have pedestrian friendly/transit friendly development to again, 1. Help developers know where what is best to be built. 2. Maximize transit, now and future. 3. Create an area with maximum potential for attractive retail/restaurant growth.
I was toying with the idea of purchasing a small spot downtown. It would take a lot of effort and a lot of money over a long time for a "little guy" like me to make something like that a go. But what caused me to give up on the idea was that I had no idea what was going to go in next to me. Something could go in that could hurt or even destroy all my hard work, or enhance it. If I was purchasing on a future "Main Street, High Street, A/Transit/Pedestrian friendly zoned street..., then I would know that the guy next to me would build something that would enhance my retail business, then the next guy, the guy across the street, etc. Each new place would make the street better and better for the businesses and the pedestrian experience. But we don't have that and I have heard other developers comment on the same thing. There is no way to know if your investment, especially if your a smaller developer, will have a future. Not every street can be an "A" pedestrian friendly street, for if you try that, none of them will be. It's really important in a downtown environment to have a good strip of pedestrian friendly development to maximize your retail potential. You don't want to be the lone shop out somewhere else, you want to be right in with or just by the rest. The more I am downtown the more I see how true that is.
Another example of how important what goes next to you in a urban environment is is Wait Phillips himself. When he built one building downtown, he purposefully bought the lot across the street to build another tower for the expressed reason that he could then control what went in there because it would either positively impact his investment, or negatively impact his investment. Most of us aren't that wealthy and with our current zoning we leave it up to chance. We pretty much have to cross our fingers and hope that what goes in next to us or across from us will either hurt or harm our business. That's not IMHO the best way to create a high quality, competitive downtown retail environment. It is a recipe for likely screwing things up. You may indeed end up with a developer who puts in ground floor retail in a hotel say, and then have it not be that successful over time because there is not the development around it to compliment it and create a pedestrian friendly area. Then might the "planners" and other naysayers point at it and say "See they put in ground floor retail spaces and it didn't work!"?. You zone for good suburban developments, Highways here, around this interchange put in higher density developments like retail and apartments, must have this much for parking, etc. Why don't we zone to have good urban development? When downtown is basically a small island with "whatever goes" zoning, and is surrounded by hundreds of square miles of suburban/car oriented zoning... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going to happen in that downtown.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 07, 2014, 04:09:21 PM
. . .and this was just published today!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/2014-most-affordable-cities_n_4554763.html
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1548043/thumbs/o-BEST-BUDGET-CITIES-570.jpg?1)
There's a reason Tulsa's #1. You get what you pay for. If we weren't cheap, we'd be deserted.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 08, 2014, 12:04:57 PM
I was toying with the idea of purchasing a small spot downtown. It would take a lot of effort and a lot of money over a long time for a "little guy" like me to make something like that a go. But what caused me to give up on the idea was that I had no idea what was going to go in next to me. Something could go in that could hurt or even destroy all my hard work, or enhance it. If I was purchasing on a future "Main Street, High Street, A/Transit/Pedestrian friendly zoned street..., then I would know that the guy next to me would build something that would enhance my retail business, then the next guy, the guy across the street, etc. Each new place would make the street better and better for the businesses and the pedestrian experience. But we don't have that and I have heard other developers comment on the same thing. There is no way to know if your investment, especially if your a smaller developer, will have a future. Not every street can be an "A" pedestrian friendly street, for if you try that, none of them will be. It's really important in a downtown environment to have a good strip of pedestrian friendly development to maximize your retail potential. You don't want to be the lone shop out somewhere else, you want to be right in with or just by the rest. The more I am downtown the more I see how true that is.
And that my friend is exactly the uncertainty that makes development downtown affordable in most of those areas. If Blue Dome was chosen, zoned, and undeniably known as the urban growth center of Tulsa (big red dot on the map), your ability to afford a lease or purchase in that heart would be significantly diminished. Additionally, all of the other areas would suffer, causing a halo effect around the "chosen" urban center. If you could afford the increasing cost that such regulated development produces, you would be in great shape.
Currently, Tulsa has a very nice problem to have. . .multiple pockets of successful urban development, all successful in their own rite. Each of these areas is dependent on their own community for success instead of the vision of will of a central planner. Each has a very different streetscape and atmosphere. The family and I love to use the pedicabs to hit these multiple hotspots and enjoy the variety of vibrant spaces separated by calm buffers.
For the entrepreneur, it means a variety of options to choose that fit a variety of business models. Ultimately it morphs into neighborhoods or districts that become known for the community they develop, and each of those has the ability to evolve over time, as the market evolves, free of restriction. The downside is that some of those areas will fail because of the community they develop, and the direction that the consumer takes.
There is no opportunity without risk.
Quote from: Townsend on January 08, 2014, 12:44:54 PM
There's a reason Tulsa's #1. You get what you pay for. If we weren't cheap, we'd be deserted.
Always amazed at the distain you have for Tulsa. There is a big difference between cheap and affordable.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 10:32:14 AM
Fun place to get drunk, but that's about it. I have friends with businesses down there and all they do is grumble and moan. Austin has a great arts community though, as well as a good food culture. They have become a magnet for conventions, but do a couple there and you realize that getting anywhere is a pain. I was there in July of last year and we had lots of rain. Unfortunately, unless you get to a parking spot at around 7am, you are hard pressed to find a spot close to where you need to be, and due to weather, myself and my colleagues looked like wet dogs for most of the week. The views from most of the bars is very entertaining. They have bicycle cops that act like shepherds for all of the homeless (and there are lots of very eccentric homeless) in clumps on each corner, bumming cigarettes and asking for money. When the cops aren't corralling their herd, they are attempting to manage the drunks flowing in and out of the bars. The drinking culture seems to enjoy lots of shots, mostly Jägermeister variants, so much so that walking through a crowd, all you smell is cigarettes Jäger and pachouli. 20 years ago, this would have been heaven. I guess I've grown out of that.
Had some of the best Guacamole I've ever had though at a little place called El Ceviche Grill off Jacinto Blvd. Still trying to duplicate it to this day!
We were there last April for a mountain bike race down near Smithville. We spent one night near 6th & Congress then moved our "base of operations" closer to the event venue because traffic was such a nightmare. If you go back, try the grilled chorizo meatloaf at Iron Cactus down in the entertainment district.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 01:03:48 PM
Always amazed at the distain you have for Tulsa. There is a big difference between cheap and affordable.
You're amazed at many things.
I have disdain for things in Tulsa, not Tulsa itself. That's why I'm involved with volunteer groups. I want to change the things that make Tulsa's success harder.
What are the differences?
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 01:03:48 PM
Always amazed at the distain you have for Tulsa. There is a big difference between cheap and affordable.
Think I'd have to agree with Townie the southie here. I was born and raised here, and except for a three year brain fart called marriage, I've lived my whole life here.
Look at the salaries here compared to those in other cities, then compare the COL. Not a huge difference really. In my field (QA for software) I'd make more in a city like Dallas simply because it demands it. Since Tulsa has the reputation for being so 'budget-minded', employers won't offer that same rate to prospects.
If those same employers would scale the pay to the same, then I'd call it 'affordable'. As it stands right now? Cheap.
Quote from: Townsend on January 08, 2014, 01:11:06 PM
You're amazed at many things.
I have disdain for things in Tulsa, not Tulsa itself. That's why I'm involved with volunteer groups. I want to change the things that make Tulsa's success harder.
What are the differences?
I commend you for volunteering your time to help make Tulsa into something different. I hope that your hard work pays off. I think we both want to see success as Tulsa's urban fabric evolves. The main difference is that I am willing to criticize the negatives and give praise and promotion to the positives. I work with businesses all over the country and never miss a chance to promote my city for all of the many positive and attractive opportunities it offers. I also work with many Tulsa businesses who embrace the same policy of civic promotion.
This thread was intended to be one of praise for the success our state and city has enjoyed during what is for many others a difficult economic time. Compound that with the fact that Tulsa provides affordable housing throughout the spectrum, and includes several growing urban communities that have developed over the last few years, and you have reason to rejoice and promote Tulsa even more!
Instead, you choose your typical snark, to flick a booger at what was a constructive conversation. I hope that you can see that.
As for your snarky question implying there is no difference between cheap, and affordable. . .
When it comes to cost of living, Tulsa offers everything from $400/mo apartments to $20 million dollar homes, that can be obtained with significantly more land, sq. footage, and amenities than other communities can offer for the same price. Combine this with low food, fuel, and energy costs, and then compound it with similar median income levels as more expensive cities, and you get an affordable lifestyle that should be promoted as such.
I think what is most striking is your comment that Tulsa would be "deserted" if it wasn't cheap. That is untrue, and in poor taste, and as a volunteer for a group who's purpose is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city possible, to promote it as either "cheap or desertable" is quite the insult and I doubt it reflects the views of the other members of your organization.
That is all. Snark away.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 01:38:14 PM
Instead, you choose your typical snark, to flick a booger at what was a constructive conversation. I hope that you can see that.
You ever go back and re-read your posts?
Quote from: Townsend on January 08, 2014, 02:01:21 PM
You ever go back and re-read your posts?
(laughing outwardly) I mean, seriously...
Quote from: Townsend on January 08, 2014, 02:03:43 PM
(laughing outwardly) I mean, seriously...
You write what you write and then get on me for being a bit negative about a post you wanted to have positive connotations?
You just keep on keepin' on there.
Quote from: Townsend on January 08, 2014, 02:05:35 PM
You write what you write and then get on me for being a bit negative about a post you wanted to have positive connotations?
You just keep on keepin' on there.
Maybe you could start taking yourself less seriously. I know the rest of us do.
Quote from: Townsend on January 08, 2014, 02:12:07 PM
Maybe you could start taking yourself less seriously. I know the rest of us do.
I mean, damn. (implied laughing smiley face here)
Quote from: rebound on January 08, 2014, 10:52:04 AM
There are so many great restaurants and bars in other areas (check out the Continental Club on SoCo, or the Saxon Pub on South Lamar. Always great local bands.)
Saw Stevie Ray Vaughn play the Continental Club around 1980. Great venue and show.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 08, 2014, 01:09:05 PM
We were there last April for a mountain bike race down near Smithville. We spent one night near 6th & Congress then moved our "base of operations" closer to the event venue because traffic was such a nightmare. If you go back, try the grilled chorizo meatloaf at Iron Cactus down in the entertainment district.
We ate there! We stayed at the Raddison, right on the river. Great view of the bat cloud every night. Had Tapas there and then went for beers at some rooftop place across the street.
Quote from: swake on January 08, 2014, 11:12:24 AM
Ok, so I looked as some real numbers for growth and compared us to four other cities. Oklahoma City, DFW, Austin, since it's been mentioned here, and DC because it's the highest income metro in the nation and one of the fastest growing. This comparison isn't against the average, all these other cities are some of, if not the best performing in the entire nation.
These numbers are from 2010 to 2012, which is the latest available. Income numbers are from the BEA and I'm using US Census MSA numbers for population.
Tulsa's MSA population grew 1.5% over those two years, from 937,478 to 951,880. Total GDP for the metro grew by 6.8% or by 5.2% per capita. Average Income per resident for Tulsa was $47,812 in 2010 and $50,312 in 2012.
Oklahoma City's population growth was better but per capita income overall and income growth was worse. OKC's MSA population grew 3.5% over those two years, from 1,252,987 to 1,296,565. Total GDP for the metro grew by 8.6% or by only 4.9% per capita. Average Income per resident for Oklahoma City was $46,560 in 2010 and $48,851 in 2012.
Austin is just booming, in all areas. Austin's MSA population grew 6.9% over those two years to 1,834,303. This is the highest growth for any large metro area in the entire country. Total GDP for the metro grew by 22.6% or by 14.7% per capita. Average Income per resident for Austin was $53,795 in 2012, a bit higher than Tulsa and Oklahoma City.
Dallas is also of course always booming. Dallas' MSA population grew 4.3% over those two years to 1,834,303. This is the highest growth for all very large metro areas over five million people. Total GDP for the metro grew by 12.4% or by 7.8% per capita. Average Income per resident for Dallas was $62,728 in 2012, a lot higher than Tulsa and Oklahoma City.
Washington DC is the highest income metro in the nation, and is also currently booming. The DC area's MSA population grew 4.0% over those two years to 1,834,303. This is the second highest growth for all very large metro areas after Dallas. Total GDP for the metro grew by 21.4% or by 16.7% per capita. Average Income per resident was $76,572 in 2012.
We are not shrinking in population or in economic activity. In economic activity actually we compare favorable to all these high growth cities on a per capita basis. We just need to grow more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/drilldown.cfm?reqid=70&stepnum=11&AreaTypeKeyGdp=5&GeoFipsGdp=XX&ClassKeyGdp=naics&ComponentKey=200&IndustryKey=1&YearGdp=2012&YearGdpBegin=-1&YearGdpEnd=-1&UnitOfMeasureKeyGdp=Levels&RankKeyGdp=1&Drill=1&nRange=5
What is also very encouraging is how we have become recognized as a great city for young entrepreneurs. This is in part thanks to some hard work on the part of the Tulsa Chamber. I have been quite critical of many of the actions of the chamber in the past, but the Forge program has proven quite successful and it represents what the spirit of the Tulsa Chamber should be all about.
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Tulsa-named-best-for-young-entrepreneurs/uZTCVsJGOkePS3v4BhNIsg.cspx
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/feki45igde/no-1-tulsa-okla/
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 01:01:34 PM
And that my friend is exactly the uncertainty that makes development downtown affordable in most of those areas. If Blue Dome was chosen, zoned, and undeniably known as the urban growth center of Tulsa (big red dot on the map), your ability to afford a lease or purchase in that heart would be significantly diminished. Additionally, all of the other areas would suffer, causing a halo effect around the "chosen" urban center. If you could afford the increasing cost that such regulated development produces, you would be in great shape.
Currently, Tulsa has a very nice problem to have. . .multiple pockets of successful urban development, all successful in their own rite. Each of these areas is dependent on their own community for success instead of the vision of will of a central planner. Each has a very different streetscape and atmosphere. The family and I love to use the pedicabs to hit these multiple hotspots and enjoy the variety of vibrant spaces separated by calm buffers.
For the entrepreneur, it means a variety of options to choose that fit a variety of business models. Ultimately it morphs into neighborhoods or districts that become known for the community they develop, and each of those has the ability to evolve over time, as the market evolves, free of restriction. The downside is that some of those areas will fail because of the community they develop, and the direction that the consumer takes.
There is no opportunity without risk.
"regulated development" Why is "regulated development" ok for every where else in the city, but downtown? Why does the "will of a central planner" work for say south Tulsa, but not for downtown? Why are suburban restrictions of "must have this many parking spaces per your building space" ok and urban, pedestrian friendly/transit friendly restrictions like "build up to the sidewalk" a recipe for "suffering"? Why is "Your not allowed to have living above retail and height restrictions" in other parts of Tulsa fine, while "please add windows and doors on the ground floor on at least these streets", a horrible idea downtown? Why is it we can spend millions of dollars on auto infrastructure in south Tulsa and zone for the right development to accommodate the master plans there, ok, but when considering transit downtown and in the core we think its wrong to zone for development which will make that plan work, a terrible intrusion? Why is it that urban zoning works in so many other cities downtowns, but would be a disaster for downtown Tulsa?
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 10:32:14 AM
Had some of the best Guacamole I've ever had though at a little place called El Ceviche Grill off Jacinto Blvd. Still trying to duplicate it to this day!
Next time go to Manuel's downtown at 3rd and Congress.
The Mole sauce is the best I have ever had.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 08, 2014, 02:47:26 PM
"regulated development" Why is "regulated development" ok for every where else in the city, but downtown? Why does the "will of a central planner" work for say south Tulsa, but not for downtown? Why are suburban restrictions of "must have this many parking spaces per your building space" ok and urban, pedestrian friendly/transit friendly restrictions like "build up to the sidewalk" a recipe for "suffering"? Why is "Your not allowed to have living above retail and height restrictions" in other parts of Tulsa fine, while "please add windows and doors on the ground floor on at least these streets", a horrible idea downtown? Why is it we can spend millions of dollars on auto infrastructure in south Tulsa and zone for the right development to accommodate the master plans there, ok, but when considering transit downtown and in the core we think its wrong to zone for development which will make that plan work, a terrible intrusion? Why is it that urban zoning works in so many other cities downtowns, but would be a disaster for downtown Tulsa?
Not against any of that. I am a fan of form-based planning and an opponent of commercial only or residential only planning. What I was commenting on was the comments on "focused" zoning.
Quoten Denver they zoned certain streets in their downtown to have pedestrian friendly/transit friendly development to again, 1. Help developers know where what is best to be built. 2. Maximize transit, now and future. 3. Create an area with maximum potential for attractive retail/restaurant growth.
When we have urban growth like we do now, it may be a good idea to let the market "create," and then zone to support it, instead of applying a standard first and hoping that the market will accept it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 08, 2014, 02:52:05 PM
Next time go to Manuel's downtown at 3rd and Congress.
The Mole sauce is the best I have ever had.
Love a good Mole. Every time I try to make it, it ends up tasting like chocolate BBQ sauce.
A man's got to know his limitations.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 02:56:30 PM
Love a good Mole. Every time I try to make it, it ends up tasting like chocolate BBQ sauce.
A man's got to know his limitations.
The best mole' we've had is at Serrano's in Woodland Park, Colorado, just out west of Colorado Springs. Absolutely amazing stuff.
Mole' can be such a wide range of ingredients it's hard to know where to start and it's one of the few things MC and I have not tried to make as of yet. I've found a really good prepared mole' at Morello's market at I-44 & Peoria, little white and red tub, no poison in it.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 08, 2014, 02:55:14 PM
Not against any of that. I am a fan of form-based planning and an opponent of commercial only or residential only planning. What I was commenting on was the comments on "focused" zoning.
When we have urban growth like we do now, it may be a good idea to let the market "create," and then zone to support it, instead of applying a standard first and hoping that the market will accept it.
Don't think we are that far apart. The urban zoning doesn't restrict what can go in, it can be anything from a car dealership to offices to living to restaurants to a mix of all of the above lol. It's concern is with creating a pedestrian/transit friendly street. A street that people feel comfortable, and even enjoy walking down. (I remember a car dealership on the Champs Elysees in Paris. Imagine the shock of this small town boy seeing a beautiful stone building with ornate carving and looking in the window at street level and seeing a car dealership, then to top it off you look up at the huge windows in each floor above all the way to the top and there is a BMW in each window. Quite a sight all lit up at night.)
Just curious as to who you great defenders of zoning flexibility.....voted for in the last mayoral election?
Bartlett won pretty handily.
He couldn't have done it without support from the very people who are now criticizing his inaction and lack of support for sustainable development, mass transit and forms based zoning. I only point this out because, as I often note, we keep electing these people because they have an "R" in front of their name on the ballot, even though they don't have our backs. We are a microcosm for the state in that regard.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 09, 2014, 11:12:37 AM
Bartlett won pretty handily.
He couldn't have done it without support from the very people who are now criticizing his inaction and lack of support for sustainable development, mass transit and forms based zoning. I only point this out because, as I often note, we keep electing these people because they have an "R" in front of their name on the ballot, even though they don't have our backs. We are a microcosm for the state in that regard.
Except, quite literally, there was no "R", "D", or "I" adjacent to a candidate's name this year as city office elections are no longer "partisan". ::)
I like Kathy's sense of vision and her dedication to the job, I think it's a shame she didn't win. The reasons she didn't went further than party affiliation, though.
Taylor managed to beat LaFortune in a partisan race, as a Democrat. Savage and Randall were both Democrats as well. I think Kathy's problem this time was she came off as mean and spiteful to many voters and the message of "Kathy quit" seemed to sink in based on social media comments I kept reading. That, and the timing of "Tailgate" sank her election. People probably felt sorry for the bumpkin being beat up on and stalked by a woman.
Tulsa has a history of voting for candidates who represent their values regardless of party affiliation. David Boren was very popular with voters in this area as was James Jones. Karen Keith (D) wouldn't have won her seat on the county commission quite handily without the help of many Republicans.
It will be interesting when Keith is up for election if her opponent will try and paint her as an Obama sympathizer and the result. She's been a fantastic public servant, so there's no way someone will be able to rip her job performance.
I do think in today's age of social media as well as conservative talk radio and TV being popular in this market it may be starting to work against Democrat candidates. All a GOP candidate has to do is link a Democrat to Obama. That was considered a big reason Adelson lost against Bartlett. Well that, and Adelson came off as a snippy little b!tch when he was called out for heavy financial support of Obama's 2008 campaign. He would have done well not to get so defensive.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 09, 2014, 11:46:00 AM
David Boren was very popular with voters in this area as was James Jones.
I liked David Boren. James Jones kept his office by district gerrymandering. That was back in "the good old days" when local elections were generally ruled by people with a "D" by their name. :(
Quote from: Conan71 on January 09, 2014, 11:46:00 AM
Except, quite literally, there was no "R", "D", or "I" adjacent to a candidate's name this year as city office elections are no longer "partisan". ::)
I like Kathy's sense of vision and her dedication to the job, I think it's a shame she didn't win. The reasons she didn't went further than party affiliation, though.
Taylor managed to beat LaFortune in a partisan race, as a Democrat. Savage and Randall were both Democrats as well. I think Kathy's problem this time was she came off as mean and spiteful to many voters and the message of "Kathy quit" seemed to sink in based on social media comments I kept reading. That, and the timing of "Tailgate" sank her election. People probably felt sorry for the bumpkin being beat up on and stalked by a woman.
Tulsa has a history of voting for candidates who represent their values regardless of party affiliation. David Boren was very popular with voters in this area as was James Jones. Karen Keith (D) wouldn't have won her seat on the county commission quite handily without the help of many Republicans.
It will be interesting when Keith is up for election if her opponent will try and paint her as an Obama sympathizer and the result. She's been a fantastic public servant, so there's no way someone will be able to rip her job performance.
I do think in today's age of social media as well as conservative talk radio and TV being popular in this market it may be starting to work against Democrat candidates. All a GOP candidate has to do is link a Democrat to Obama. That was considered a big reason Adelson lost against Bartlett. Well that, and Adelson came off as a snippy little b!tch when he was called out for heavy financial support of Obama's 2008 campaign. He would have done well not to get so defensive.
I didn't see to much "party" politics in this last election. I think Kathy had the election in the bag until the Tailgate Scandal. She had more local prominent Republicans endorsing her than Dewey did. Right or wrong, Oklahoman's tend to associate Democrats with skeenchy political practices, and using an out of town intern dispatched by a Democrat party operative who works in DC, to stalk your opponent cemented the Taylor association with Obama and the Democrat political machine in people's minds.
If I were Taylor or any supporter of hers I would be furious at whoever thought such an action was wise. I would also be ashamed at the trail they left behind, because it basically makes it very hard for her to run again.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 09, 2014, 12:29:30 PM
I liked David Boren. James Jones kept his office by district gerrymandering. That was back in "the good old days" when local elections were generally ruled by people with a "D" by their name. :(
I like him to. Part of an older Democrat party, not as affiliated with progressive/socialist policy. Very genuine man. I also like Roger Randle. I actually have some of his photography hanging in my office.
If I am the "king of condescension", you guys are the "crown princes of rationalization".
She lost because she was a "she" and a Democrat who was linked to Obama. The most I will give you is that Dewey seemed more conservative and in Tulsa that is as big a C word as Christ. In reality, Kathy is pretty conservative and definitely more business oriented than mr.B. The more high profile Republicans knew that and supported her. The uninformed, hysterical TPers and lock step conservatives did not. I'll never forget that Veterans Day parade that made us look like a National Lampoon setting.
To see folks who I suspect (and some I know) regularly vote C and R then moan about our lack of progress on these issues just leaves me cold.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 09, 2014, 12:59:09 PM
If I am the "king of condescension", you guys are the "crown princes of rationalism".
She lost because she was a "she" and a Democrat who was linked to Obama. The most I will give you is that Dewey seemed more conservative and in Tulsa that is as big a C word as Christ. In reality, Kathy is pretty conservative and definitely more business oriented than mr.B. The more high profile Republicans knew that and supported her. The uninformed, hysterical TPers and lock step conservatives did not. I'll never forget that Veterans Day parade that made us look like a National Lampoon setting.
To see folks who I suspect (and some I know) regularly vote C and R then moan about our lack of progress on these issues just leaves me cold.
That doesn't square with the fact "she" had aleady won the job once with a "D" behind her name. She lost because the meme "she quit" struck a cord with many (and had the political advantage of being mostly true) and her "back to basics" campaign theme struck many as at odds with her record. It also did not help that spending $4.5 million of (mostly) her own money smacked of someone trying to buy the office.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 09, 2014, 12:59:09 PM
If I am the "king of condescension", you guys are the "crown princes of rationalism".
She lost because she was a "she" and a Democrat who was linked to Obama. The most I will give you is that Dewey seemed more conservative and in Tulsa that is as big a C word as Christ. In reality, Kathy is pretty conservative and definitely more business oriented than mr.B. The more high profile Republicans knew that and supported her. The uninformed, hysterical TPers and lock step conservatives did not. I'll never forget that Veterans Day parade that made us look like a National Lampoon setting.
To see folks who I suspect (and some I know) regularly vote C and R then moan about our lack of progress on these issues just leaves me cold.
That still doesn't square with her victory over LaFortune, though. She was a carpet-bagging big donor to Democrats in national, state, and local office, and that was a front-and-center issue lodged against her in her first run for mayor.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 09, 2014, 12:59:09 PM
If I am the "king of condescension", you guys are the "crown princes of rationalism".
She lost because she was a "she" and a Democrat who was linked to Obama. The most I will give you is that Dewey seemed more conservative and in Tulsa that is as big a C word as Christ. In reality, Kathy is pretty conservative and definitely more business oriented than mr.B. The more high profile Republicans knew that and supported her. The uninformed, hysterical TPers and lock step conservatives did not. I'll never forget that Veterans Day parade that made us look like a National Lampoon setting.
To see folks who I suspect (and some I know) regularly vote C and R then moan about our lack of progress on these issues just leaves me cold.
Don't buy it. Lots of us voted for her before. She was quite popular.
Carter suggests you wear a sweater.
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/03/CarterSweater0558.jpeg)
Quote from: DTowner on January 09, 2014, 03:00:50 PM
That doesn't square with the fact "she" had aleady won the job once with a "D" behind her name. She lost because the meme "she quit" struck a cord with many (and had the political advantage of being mostly true) and her "back to basics" campaign theme struck many as at odds with her record. It also did not help that spending $4.5 million of (mostly) her own money smacked of someone trying to buy the office.
Good point. I never really thought about it that way, but to some I'm sure it did seem that she was coming back to tulsa to buy a royal social status. Even though most know here as a very hard worker.
Some good points here. It seems that her biggest problem was not a track record problem, or a politics problem. Her biggest handicap was her image. The PR behind her campaign only served to hurt her.
Dewey basically didn't even run a campaign. He just let her over-message herself until the end.
I'm willing to bet that Bartlett knew that kid was watching his house and knew who he worked for. All he had to do was call up the uniforms and say "ok, pick him up today" and tap in the final nail.
Never Interfere With an Enemy While He's in the Process of Destroying Himself -Napoleon
Quote from: Gaspar on January 09, 2014, 03:32:24 PM
Some good points here. It seems that her biggest problem was not a track record problem, or a politics problem. Her biggest handicap was her image. The PR behind her campaign only served to hurt her.
Dewey basically didn't even run a campaign. He just let her over-message herself until the end.
I'm willing to bet that Bartlett knew that kid was watching his house and knew who he worked for. All he had to do was call up the uniforms and say "ok, pick him up today" and tap in the final nail.
Never Interfere With an Enemy While He's in the Process of Destroying Himself -Napoleon
Taylor ran a media campaign, Bartlett ran a grassroots campaign. She had the money and spent it on ads and consultants. He did not have the money so he and his supporters knocked on doors. All other things being equal, in Tulsa local elections, grassroots beats money almost every time (i.e. Bridensten v. Sullivan, etc.).
Had to change your royal labels. Crown Princes of Rationalization.
Look, you guys are stuck on details. Details I take issue with. Like comparing the first election against a different opponent in a different time to the latest election. Or some bogus issue about the intern. The money she spent was more than balanced off by bringing in B-Stein, Inhofe et al. Your points at first glance appear all logical and well thought out but they're guesses as to why she lost and no better than mine. Just guesses. But regardless, that's not the point. Obsession with arguable details is clouding your vision.
Once again we elected a guy who not only misrepresented himself as being in favor of the same issues this forum was established to encourage, but had no particular record in moving us towards them. He doesn't believe in mass transit, sustainability, growing the downtown or forms based zoning. If you really believe he supports river development, get a picture of him standing in the Arkansas like LaFortune did and circulate it in South Tulsa with the label, "the river development Mayor". Not going to happen. He won't allow that picture!
We then spend pages moaning that we just can't move forward in this town like other cities have.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 09, 2014, 05:49:53 PMHad to change your royal labels. Crown Princes of Rationalization.
Look, you guys are stuck on details. Details I take issue with. Like comparing the first election against a different opponent in a different time to the latest election. Or some bogus issue about the intern. The money she spent was more than balanced off by bringing in B-Stein, Inhofe et al. Your points at first glance appear all logical and well thought out but they're guesses as to why she lost and no better than mine. Just guesses. But regardless, that's not the point. Obsession with arguable details is clouding your vision.
Once again we elected a guy who not only misrepresented himself as being in favor of the same issues this forum was established to encourage, but had no particular record in moving us towards them. He doesn't believe in mass transit, sustainability, growing the downtown or forms based zoning. If you really believe he supports river development, get a picture of him standing in the Arkansas like LaFortune did and circulate it in South Tulsa with the label, "the river development Mayor". Not going to happen. He won't allow that picture!
We then spend pages moaning that we just can't move forward in this town like other cities have.
City seems to be doing pretty well. Downtown seems to be growing pretty fast. Things like Gathering Place and others seem to be moving along. Lots of big new developments all over town. Looks like we are moving in the right direction. Must be in spite of him. As for the state, you can say the same thing. Must be in spite of her.
Or
Perhaps communities move forward based on what people want. Government only has the power to hinder, not the power to produce. The best politicians are those who know when to just step out of the way.
But ...Bartlett didn't.
From reading your remarks about zoning on another thread, your view doesn't surprise me. For instance, you think the changes in zoning should follow the activity. Strange in other places but normal here (thats a great idea if it works!). Artist makes good points, but frankly, the curtains have been pulled back and the audience shreiks in horror!! Yet we knew it all along. Blake would have been a good candidate for Tulsa.
The old adage that if you didn't vote you can't complain is good. If you voted for a guy who doesn't support the issues you hold dear, then don't complain is also good advice.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 09, 2014, 07:26:07 PM
Downtown seems to be growing pretty fast. Things like Gathering Place and others seem to be moving along. Lots of big new developments all over town.
Or
Perhaps communities move forward based on what people want. Government only has the power to hinder, not the power to produce. The best politicians are those who know when to just step out of the way.
Downtown is doing better, but I would not say it is growing fast. I really hope it begins to take off though for it has a lot of potential and gosh knows I have been sinking a lot of my time, sweat and money into trying to do what paltry little I can, and can use all the growth down there we can muster lol. The Gathering Place is definitely a bright spot for Tulsa. We are so fortunate to be getting a park of this size and caliber. Don't know about "Lots of big new developments all over town." Only decent sized one I know of is the casino expansion/hotel. We certainly don't have the "cranes in the air" that other cities have. Things are looking up, and even the national economy is starting to finally give glimmers of real hope. The things I want for Tulsa will happen. It's just a matter of when, how much struggle, and regret (for not having done it sooner) will pass before they do.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 07, 2014, 03:02:07 PM
I couldn't locate the backup data or methodology employed for the graphic you posted. I would assume it is based on something, but there is no data, so lets look at existing present & historical data to answer your questions above.
Statistically our current population growth is 1.7% from 2010-2012 according to the census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html), and that would indicate that our job growth is keeping up quite well. Using your example, Austin only had a 0.7% population increase in that same time, and only maintained a slightly lower unemployment rate at 4.8% instead of Tulsa's 4.9%.
We do have 16.6%, as of 2012, living under the poverty level, but that is typical of more rural/agricultural states, and lower incomes in such areas are counterbalanced with a far lower cost of living. More Oklahomans own their own home at 67.5% than the national average of 65.5% and such equity is extremely important when it comes to financial security and retirement.
Median income in our state is $44,891 with a mean income of $60,788 according to the same census data (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk) cited above. When you look at families, the dynamic changes, with median family income of $56,068, these numbers have grown from a $40,709 median in 2000 (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk). It would seem that our job growth, economic growth, as well and individual and family income growth have grown at a very healthy pace.
I see all of this as very good news and indication that economically the people and businesses in our state are making good decisions and enjoying the economic freedom necessary for growth. We also seem to have state and local governments willing to step out of the way, or at least restrict interference with private sector forces.
Median household income at $44,891 is doing great...??? Wow! Per capita income is $24,000 in Oklahoma. That means, with 2,000 hours as a typical full time job, that the average in this state doesn't even get 40 hours a week at minimum wage! That is NOT great by any definition except the RWRE Fox Cabal. That is pathetic! And with only 2.53 persons average per household - geez....
But it goes to satisfy the conditions desired and expressed by an old saying from decades ago; to Democrats, low wages are the problem. To Republicans, low wages are the answer.
Yep, Oklahoma is doing a great job of stepping out of the way of the private sector so they can run roughshod over their workers - keeping them at below subsistence wages. Yeah...that's great. Plus the added benefit of the state cutting funding for education by 30%....it just don't get any better than that!!
I ask again, where is the benefit in the next call center or Macy's DC or the next big fast food thing, if it is gonna bring in a bunch more minimum wage jobs? Answer; there is none.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 09, 2014, 11:21:43 PM
I ask again, where is the benefit in the next call center or Macy's DC or the next big fast food thing, if it is gonna bring in a bunch more minimum wage jobs? Answer; there is none.
And I ask you, what are you doing about the problem? Are you hiring? Are you paying more than minimum wage? Or are you complaining about someone else not doing so?
Quote from: guido911 on January 10, 2014, 01:11:37 AM
And I ask you, what are you doing about the problem? Are you hiring? Are you paying more than minimum wage? Or are you complaining about someone else not doing so?
Many of us don't believe you have to be a company/land owner to state opinions.
Do you believe you need to be a company/land owner to state opinions?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 09, 2014, 11:21:43 PM
Median household income at $44,891 is doing great...??? Wow! Per capita income is $24,000 in Oklahoma. That means, with 2,000 hours as a typical full time job, that the average in this state doesn't even get 40 hours a week at minimum wage! That is NOT great by any definition except the RWRE Fox Cabal. That is pathetic! And with only 2.53 persons average per household - geez....
But it goes to satisfy the conditions desired and expressed by an old saying from decades ago; to Democrats, low wages are the problem. To Republicans, low wages are the answer.
Yep, Oklahoma is doing a great job of stepping out of the way of the private sector so they can run roughshod over their workers - keeping them at below subsistence wages. Yeah...that's great. Plus the added benefit of the state cutting funding for education by 30%....it just don't get any better than that!!
I ask again, where is the benefit in the next call center or Macy's DC or the next big fast food thing, if it is gonna bring in a bunch more minimum wage jobs? Answer; there is none.
Federal minimum wage is $7.25. $24,000 per year equals $12.00 an hour at 2000 hours. I hope your cipherin' when you are engineering things is more accurate.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 09, 2014, 10:57:25 PM
Downtown is doing better, but I would not say it is growing fast. I really hope it begins to take off though for it has a lot of potential and gosh knows I have been sinking a lot of my time, sweat and money into trying to do what paltry little I can, and can use all the growth down there we can muster lol. The Gathering Place is definitely a bright spot for Tulsa. We are so fortunate to be getting a park of this size and caliber. Don't know about "Lots of big new developments all over town." Only decent sized one I know of is the casino expansion/hotel. We certainly don't have the "cranes in the air" that other cities have. Things are looking up, and even the national economy is starting to finally give glimmers of real hope. The things I want for Tulsa will happen. It's just a matter of when, how much struggle, and regret (for not having done it sooner) will pass before they do.
"Begins to take off"?
IMO, since 2004, I'd say the investment and growth within downtown has been nothing short of astounding. Think about all the new hotel projects announced in the past couple of months
I recall driving through the Brady early last year and marveling that there were about seven cranes in the air all at once. In addition to projects currently underway, there's a slew of completed renovations and new construction now complete with just a few of the highlights:
BOK Center
Mayo Hotel
A-Loft Hotel
Fairfield Inn
One Place
OneOk Field
GreenArch
Tulsa Club
Tribune Lofts
Look at all the old storefronts that have now been repurposed including your shop (I still want to hi-jack the old smoker in your building) and The Vault as well as the entire Blue Dome District which was little more than transient night clubs barely built out to code ten years ago.
I'm forgetting many others, but if that isn't fast growth, I don't know what is. Especially considering how many projects continued during the economic downturn. Honestly, downtown is the most vibrant I can remember in the near 50 years I've lived here. Certainly there's more room for growth, but there's no shortage of projects on the drawing board and in the backs of people's minds that will happen in the next five years. Ten years from now, we will look back and say: "Holy crap! Look how dense the area inside the IDL is, when did that happen?"
Quote from: AquaMan on January 09, 2014, 05:49:53 PM
Obsession with arguable details is clouding your vision.
Says he who is still arguing.
It was Randi Miller who stood in the river, FYI, not Bill LessFortunate.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 10, 2014, 08:56:51 AM
It was Randi Miller who stood in the river,
That went well for her.
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6893/2177/320/MillerintheArkansas.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on January 10, 2014, 08:56:51 AM
Says he who is still arguing.
It was Randi Miller who stood in the river, FYI, not Bill LessFortunate.
Use your own advice and watch for accuracy. I personally stood in Bill Lafortune's mayoral office and gazed upon the original photo hanging on the wall of the fortunate one standing in the river with his suit pant legs rolled up and his Johnston-Murphy's in hand. Underneath it was the phrase "The River Development Mayor". It amused me since his office did absolutely nothing to help me with my river problems at the time. At least Randi tried.
I am not arguing anything. I made one series of posts out of 5 pages. Said my piece and defended my remarks. You on the other hand are everywhere at all times disputing, discussing, arguing and misremembering.
If Tulsa is the best its been in 50 years, (thanks Obama!) then lets stop now and enjoy it.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 10, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
"Begins to take off"?
IMO, since 2004, I'd say the investment and growth within downtown has been nothing short of astounding. Think about all the new hotel projects announced in the past couple of months
I recall driving through the Brady early last year and marveling that there were about seven cranes in the air all at once. In addition to projects currently underway, there's a slew of completed renovations and new construction now complete with just a few of the highlights:
BOK Center
Mayo Hotel
A-Loft Hotel
Fairfield Inn
One Place
OneOk Field
GreenArch
Tulsa Club
Tribune Lofts
Look at all the old storefronts that have now been repurposed including your shop (I still want to hi-jack the old smoker in your building) and The Vault as well as the entire Blue Dome District which was little more than transient night clubs barely built out to code ten years ago.
I'm forgetting many others, but if that isn't fast growth, I don't know what is. Especially considering how many projects continued during the economic downturn. Honestly, downtown is the most vibrant I can remember in the near 50 years I've lived here. Certainly there's more room for growth, but there's no shortage of projects on the drawing board and in the backs of people's minds that will happen in the next five years. Ten years from now, we will look back and say: "Holy crap! Look how dense the area inside the IDL is, when did that happen?"
. . . and it's not just downtown. Tulsa hills is a boom, South Memorial is rocking, Midtown has several new businesses and infill developments, Yale from 41st all the way to 91st has tons of new development, and on and on. Most of my family and friends are involved in either commercial or residential construction, and after the slump of 2008-2011 that led many construction businesses to screech to a halt or even shut their doors, we have suddenly come roaring back with all kinds of projects, and they are not just concentrated in one area.
I suppose we all see things through our own lenses, but I would find it very hard to drive from downtown to South Tulsa and not see a development boom in our city.
Another thing I have witnessed. . .
My company provides business technology solutions and custom software to mostly distribution, wholesale supply, and manufacturing companies. From 2008 to 2011 we were primarily involved in helping companies automate processes to avoid adding additional labor force. We are still doing that nationally, but locally our clients are expanding operations and increasing system user counts by the hundreds.
Quote from: guido911 on January 10, 2014, 01:11:37 AM
And I ask you, what are you doing about the problem? Are you hiring? Are you paying more than minimum wage? Or are you complaining about someone else not doing so?
I hire intermittently for special projects as needed, since I don't have enough business for anyone full time, including myself (there are only a max of 6 of us total, part time now - and that goes up and down with the project intake). I have stated in the past that I don't believe any job in this country is worth less than $10 an hour, so I never pay anyone less than that. Some make much more, depending on experience, expertise, and the type of work, etc. I always have to pay the engineer (other than me) more than the others. Now, after this last year of learning the history of minimum wage, and how abominably it has been reduced by 30% in the last 45 years, I raised the minimum that I will pay to $14. And the higher paids were raised proportionally.
We are working hard to become full time, and when that happens, everyone will go up $1 an hour immediately. Including myself!! And if full time success is even close to part time - we have good margins in the part time world - then everyone who helps lift this little boat will share in the rewards.
If I cannot stay ahead of the 1968 minimum wage, then I should NOT be doing whatever that job is. And that includes the kid I have sweep the floor when doing our occasional manufacturing work.... smallest part of the operation now....
Our corporate goal is to work a good, hard, solid 6 months a year to make our livings - comparable to current 12 month efforts. If we can scale up the execution, it is a reasonable goal. 6 months a year vacation is the ultimate goal!!
I'm sure you are also paying more than min wage, otherwise I don't think you could get your business to run successfully enough to make the kind of geetis you seem to enjoy! I suspect the care and feeding of a law firm is a little different from our little group of misfits....
Oh...almost forgot... Yes. I am complaining about someone - anyone - else not doing so. They should be ashamed of themselves, especially when you consider that productivity in this country has risen over 100% average - and WAY above that in many more - the fact that someone feels compelled to steal that extra 30% of wage growth from the people making them a success, when they have already benefited to the tune of 100% ++ is just greedy, petty, and shameful. And wrong.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 10, 2014, 08:43:47 AM
Federal minimum wage is $7.25. $24,000 per year equals $12.00 an hour at 2000 hours. I hope your cipherin' when you are engineering things is more accurate.
Yep, that's what I get for not using a calculator. Still just barely above the minimum wage of 1968. Not great. That's why we went to $14.
And it is amazing that even with that $12 an hour, you could think that people are doing so great - that number means half the people make (a lot) less than that, so that the 1% can make there many, many times more than that.
One prime national example that we have a large presence of is McDonald's. Corporate is telling them how to save money and make themselves better off working a part time job at minimum wage. When the CEO makes almost 600 times as much as his average worker bee. And it is kind of sad that you don't see something wrong with that....
Anyone here want to touch on that old minimum wage ditty again?
No.
Ok, moving along.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 10, 2014, 11:01:38 AM
Anyone here want to touch on that old minimum wage ditty again?
No.
Ok, moving along.
I'm sure you, along with the entire rest of FoxWorld don't want to...it should be embarassing for them. Still...it is a reality of life, not just in OK, but nationwide.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 10, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
"Begins to take off"?
IMO, since 2004, I'd say the investment and growth within downtown has been nothing short of astounding. Think about all the new hotel projects announced in the past couple of months
I recall driving through the Brady early last year and marveling that there were about seven cranes in the air all at once. In addition to projects currently underway, there's a slew of completed renovations and new construction now complete with just a few of the highlights:
BOK Center
Mayo Hotel
A-Loft Hotel
Fairfield Inn
One Place
OneOk Field
GreenArch
Tulsa Club
Tribune Lofts
Look at all the old storefronts that have now been repurposed including your shop (I still want to hi-jack the old smoker in your building) and The Vault as well as the entire Blue Dome District which was little more than transient night clubs barely built out to code ten years ago.
I'm forgetting many others, but if that isn't fast growth, I don't know what is. Especially considering how many projects continued during the economic downturn. Honestly, downtown is the most vibrant I can remember in the near 50 years I've lived here. Certainly there's more room for growth, but there's no shortage of projects on the drawing board and in the backs of people's minds that will happen in the next five years. Ten years from now, we will look back and say: "Holy crap! Look how dense the area inside the IDL is, when did that happen?"
Sorry, missed that bad choice of words, perhaps it was the particular perspective I was coming from. Downtown is indeed "taking off" relative from where it was. BRAVO! Maybe I need to stay away from the "City Compilations" thread on Skyscraper Pages forums. Different cities list and show pictures of the developments currently underway in their cities and I am often blown away by what I see compared to us. What we have going on, though great and I am excited and happy to have at least this, would be hardly even be considered worth mentioning except as small side notes. 6 new hotels, bravo I will give ya that is good news, but a dime a dozen of the sort going on in other cities as well. Would like to think we are doing well enough to get at least one high-rise hotel and I think we will see one. Living, we have a few going in here and there, but nothing compared to so many other competitor cities with multiple high-rise developments going in. Office towers too, we got one recently, and glad to have it, but would be hesitant to list that on Tulsa's compilation page cause the rest would be aghast at how banal and cheap the construction/design is next to their lists of flashy new glass towers under construction both of office and living. You still look at our downtown and for the most part the thought is "Wow they must have had some money in the 80's, but what happened after that? They seemed to have died?" The newish City Hall building and the beautiful BOK center are the spots of exception. Also, as was mentioned by city leaders at a meeting I was in this morning, tax receipts are down in Tulsa and that pays a lot of the bills.
Again, I think we are doing better and have turned the corner downtown. Just think we can ramp up our potential growth a notch, quality and quantity wise, if we but only make some small changes here and there.
But change is hard here in Tulsa, even small changes. Perhaps my tact is wrong? My thinking has been that if we think everything is going great then there is no incentive to make any changes? Why change? My pointing out weaknesses or what I see "better example wise" that other cities have done, isn't to put Tulsa down but to put enough of a fire under us to try something to potentially ramp up and better what we do have going on. Am I wrong in that approach? Perhaps should I instead say hey everything is going great let's do this to make it better? Or are you one of those that don't believe we need to do anything differently? Or if you do think we could make some changes here and there how would you get those changes to happen?
I was invited to and went to the Mayors Breakfast meeting this morning with other retailers. I was kind of the downtown representative. I quickly said a little schpeel about how great it would be to have a nice long strip downtown of pedestrian friendly retail, shops, restaurants etc. and how having that type of lively bustling street life would benefit the whole city, (the number of times people have come into my shop after 8 or 9 and said we are the ONLY store open downtown ((the only store in a metro of almost a MILLION people)) "pause for dramatic effect. etc. How important it is in a downtown environment to have pedestrian friendly connectivity and how even one or two "pedestrian unfriendly" developments can hurt that connectivity. How we have zoning for great car oriented development in other parts of the city and pointed out that we do not have any pedestrian/transit friendly zoning in downtown. Cut to the chase "Might we consider doing something like Denver did and have some carrots, some tax incentives, on one street, perhaps a street where in the future we may like to see some transit, to help encourage businesses along that street to create pedestrian/transit friendly development?"
Must have it a raw nerve or something for one city person immediately interjected that we can't give tax incentives to everyone. Think he had been hearing a lot of negativity out there about the Macy's deal. And perhaps my timing was bad cause others also mentioned incentives for this or that so I can see that he was probably worn out on the topic.
Anyway, wasn't mentioning rezoning all of downtown or even one street in downtown, or anything grandiose (though other cities have put Form Based codes over their entire cities lol). Thought surely they might consider looking at the notion of some guidelines along with some pedestrian/transit friendly tax incentives to encourage developers to follow them, on one little street. But felt like I had just turned into public enemy number one. Thank goodness that as we went around the table others from Woodland Hills to Tulsa Hills representatives mentioned too that having a vibrant downtown core would actually help them and that the different points I had made had merit. So at least I didn't feel too bad. Mayor didn't say anything when I was speaking but did seem to take more notes with what I had said. So who knows.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 10, 2014, 11:27:11 AM
Cut to the chase "Might we consider doing something like Denver did and have some carrots, some tax incentives, on one street, perhaps a street where in the future we may like to see some transit, to help encourage businesses along that street to create pedestrian/transit friendly development?"
Denver's building a train route from the airport to downtown.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 10, 2014, 10:47:35 AM
Yep, that's what I get for not using a calculator. Still just barely above the minimum wage of 1968. Not great. That's why we went to $14.
And it is amazing that even with that $12 an hour, you could think that people are doing so great - that number means half the people make (a lot) less than that, so that the 1% can make there many, many times more than that.
One prime national example that we have a large presence of is McDonald's. Corporate is telling them how to save money and make themselves better off working a part time job at minimum wage. When the CEO makes almost 600 times as much as his average worker bee. And it is kind of sad that you don't see something wrong with that....
Average incomes also include pensioners with paid mortgages and kids just starting out with minimal needs. There are also people who have simple needs and wants. If all a fellow wants is a five acre parcel with a double-wide, a bass boat, and a decent pick up truck, he's more than happy making $30K per year. People who seek better opportunities and who prepare themselves for better opportunities either by improving their education or job skills will eventually earn more, a good deal more.
People who bring no innovation, motivation, or advanced job skills to an employer have no right to demand an arbitrary increase in pay simply because they "deserve" it. I was brought up that no one
deserves anything in the job world- you
earn what you are worth. What you are worth is what you bring to the table that represents an increased value to the employer. A code welder is worth far more to my employer than a structural welder. Skills more in line with what we need pays more, it's that simple.
People are paid what they are worth to the employer, you even said that's how you do it yourself based on experience and skill. There's a huge difference in responsibility, stress, and skill required to operate a multi-billion dollar food giant than there is to sweep floors and ask if: "you want fries with that?".
McDonalds is a lame meme anyhow. Anyone who stays with them and shows great people skills, a work ethic, and desire to succeed can and do advance to management and they make better income. McDonald's has also made millionaires out of people who started out as teens who came from nothing and eventually managed to work their way into a franchise or two, or more. That happens throughout the fast food industry.
Teachers or fast food workers know going in that theirs aren't the best paying jobs and never will be. If someone wants to make a higher income, they need to aim higher, and go into a business with historically higher wages such as law, medicine, high end welding or machining, engineering, accounting, etc.
If a CEO of a company makes 600 times what the floor sweepers do, he or she must be worth it to the stock holders otherwise, he or she would not earn that. Their relative salary represents how much value the company owners put on that person.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 10, 2014, 02:46:06 PM
Average incomes also include pensioners with paid mortgages and kids just starting out with minimal needs. There are also people who have simple needs and wants. If all a fellow wants is a five acre parcel with a double-wide, a bass boat, and a decent pick up truck, he's more than happy making $30K per year. People who seek better opportunities and who prepare themselves for better opportunities either by improving their education or job skills will eventually earn more, a good deal more.
People who bring no innovation, motivation, or advanced job skills to an employer have no right to demand an arbitrary increase in pay simply because they "deserve" it. I was brought up that no one deserves anything in the job world- you earn what you are worth. What you are worth is what you bring to the table that represents an increased value to the employer. A code welder is worth far more to my employer than a structural welder. Skills more in line with what we need pays more, it's that simple.
People are paid what they are worth to the employer, you even said that's how you do it yourself based on experience and skill. There's a huge difference in responsibility, stress, and skill required to operate a multi-billion dollar food giant than there is to sweep floors and ask if: "you want fries with that?".
McDonalds is a lame meme anyhow. Anyone who stays with them and shows great people skills, a work ethic, and desire to succeed can and do advance to management and they make better income. McDonald's has also made millionaires out of people who started out as teens who came from nothing and eventually managed to work their way into a franchise or two, or more. That happens throughout the fast food industry.
Teachers or fast food workers know going in that theirs aren't the best paying jobs and never will be. If someone wants to make a higher income, they need to aim higher, and go into a business with historically higher wages such as law, medicine, high end welding or machining, engineering, accounting, etc.
If a CEO of a company makes 600 times what the floor sweepers do, he or she must be worth it to the stock holders otherwise, he or she would not earn that. Their relative salary represents how much value the company owners put on that person.
Further more, increases in minimum wage do not help unskilled workers. On the contrary, if I can only afford to spend $400 a week for general office janitorial service, I can afford to hire someone full time to keep the offices tidy. If someone tells me that I must pay $14 an hr, that blows my budget, so I put up a sign in the break room that says "Your mother does not work here (anymore)" and make a policy that everyone is responsible for their own office trash, windows, and a weekly vacuuming.
Now all of a sudden there are a bunch of unemployed janitors who were supporting their families, perhaps going to school, or supplementing a spouses income.
Not everyone is McDonalds. More minimum wage workers work for small businesses than for large conglomerates. We have a receptionist who is working on her degree. We pay her a little under $10hr to answer the phones 5 days a week. She is allowed to study at work and we encourage that. What we pay her, pays for her current lifestyle. If we were to be mandated to pay $14/hr, we would likely do what other companies have done and allow an automated attendant to catch the phones. Sure we are willing to pay her more, and have told her that we will transition her into more administrative responsibilities once she finishes her degree and develops the skills we require for that level of compensation.
Minimum wage is the lowest step on the corporate ladder. The higher you make that first step, the harder it is for people to reach it, and fewer will be able to climb.
Dang it! You sucked me in again. Don't worry I have no expectation that the logic will seep in.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 10, 2014, 02:46:06 PM
Average incomes also include pensioners with paid mortgages and kids just starting out with minimal needs. There are also people who have simple needs and wants. If all a fellow wants is a five acre parcel with a double-wide, a bass boat, and a decent pick up truck, he's more than happy making $30K per year. People who seek better opportunities and who prepare themselves for better opportunities either by improving their education or job skills will eventually earn more, a good deal more.
People who bring no innovation, motivation, or advanced job skills to an employer have no right to demand an arbitrary increase in pay simply because they "deserve" it. I was brought up that no one deserves anything in the job world- you earn what you are worth. What you are worth is what you bring to the table that represents an increased value to the employer. A code welder is worth far more to my employer than a structural welder. Skills more in line with what we need pays more, it's that simple.
People are paid what they are worth to the employer, you even said that's how you do it yourself based on experience and skill. There's a huge difference in responsibility, stress, and skill required to operate a multi-billion dollar food giant than there is to sweep floors and ask if: "you want fries with that?".
McDonalds is a lame meme anyhow. Anyone who stays with them and shows great people skills, a work ethic, and desire to succeed can and do advance to management and they make better income. McDonald's has also made millionaires out of people who started out as teens who came from nothing and eventually managed to work their way into a franchise or two, or more. That happens throughout the fast food industry.
Teachers or fast food workers know going in that theirs aren't the best paying jobs and never will be. If someone wants to make a higher income, they need to aim higher, and go into a business with historically higher wages such as law, medicine, high end welding or machining, engineering, accounting, etc.
If a CEO of a company makes 600 times what the floor sweepers do, he or she must be worth it to the stock holders otherwise, he or she would not earn that. Their relative salary represents how much value the company owners put on that person.
Yes, the highly compensated CEO is oft-cited as the classic example of ascribing astronomical worth to value. However, many of the same boot strappers who believe this seem to abandon that principle when it is applied to other well paid professionals such as athletes and entertainers. Although compensation is largely market driven, it boils down to a SINGLE entity paying someone what it believes that individual is worth to them, and that is all that matters. Doesn't matter if others outside of that agreement concur or not (their name isn't anywhere on the check).
Of course, on the other side we see CEOs released, athletes cut from teams, and the termination and non-renewal of recording contracts everyday. Yes, it can be tough at the top.
All is not fair and never will be, and the real truth is that we are not nearly as self-made as we sometimes like to think we are. Get a good education, prepare, apply, and position yourself. This alone will not guarantee success but likely increases the odds when considered with other deciding factors.
Quote from: Rookie Okie on January 11, 2014, 12:31:20 AM
All is not fair and never will be, and the real truth is that we are not nearly as self-made as we sometimes like to think we are. Get a good education, prepare, apply, and position yourself. This alone will not guarantee success but likely increases the odds when considered with other deciding factors.
Absolutely, without a few breaks early on, I might be pushing a broom at Whirlpool. You can prepare all you like, but you are still dependent on opportunity.
Quote from: Rookie Okie on January 11, 2014, 12:31:20 AM
Although compensation is largely market driven, it boils down to a SINGLE entity paying someone what it believes that individual is worth to them, and that is all that matters. Doesn't matter if others outside of that agreement concur or not (their name isn't anywhere on the check).
In theory. In practice, CEOs have been fleecing shareholders due to poor corporate governance and a bunch of inbred compensation committees doing the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" thing. One must always keep in mind that management does not own the public companies you're talking about.
As far as Tulsa's development is concerned, we won't see big things until the city is willing to do for downtown what they're willing to do for the outer areas, which is zone appropriately and spend money on transportation projects appropriate to the area. Happily, we have enough risk takers in this town that we're getting quite a bit of pedestrian oriented development in downtown despite the city's continued inaction. Almost enough to keep some of our young people here, even. Transit is the biggest stumbling block remaining there (at least among the people I talk to). It's still a huge PITA to live in Tulsa without a car in the family, no matter what neighborhood you choose.
I was very disappointed to hear the rumors that the Peoria quasi-BRT is going to be one of the last V2 projects.
Quote from: nathanm on January 11, 2014, 07:07:58 PM
Transit is the biggest stumbling block remaining there (at least among the people I talk to). It's still a huge PITA to live in Tulsa without a car in the family, no matter what neighborhood you choose.
Tulsa's transit system certainly needs improvement. I think there are not very many cities in the US where living without a car is truly workable except maybe a few select neighborhoods. Anyone care to start a list? I nominate NYC.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 11, 2014, 09:22:42 PM
Tulsa's transit system certainly needs improvement. I think there are not very many cities in the US where living without a car is truly workable except maybe a few select neighborhoods. Anyone care to start a list? I nominate NYC.
San Francisco if you live/work in the city limits.
Quote from: Hoss on January 11, 2014, 09:35:31 PM
San Francisco if you live/work in the city limits.
Hmmm, you can get to SF from San Jose, Fremont, Dublin, and other outlying cities quite easily on BART. Fremont to Embarcadero is ~40 minutes in the morning on a work day.
Back in September, I took BART from Fremont to Embarcadero, and then SF Muni to AT&T park for a game and it took about 50 minutes, and back to Fremont took about 50 minutes, and cost $15.00. Parking near the park was $20.00 and up. If you live in the Bay area, you buy a Muni Pass that also works with BART, and you can include the cable cars and other transit, (yes people use the cable cars in SF for more than tourism) and god forbid you have to walk a half mile to work from your station it's a hell of a lot cheaper than driving and paying for parking and any bridge tolls.
But then again, it requires walking, which is foreign to a lot of people.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 11, 2014, 09:22:42 PM
Tulsa's transit system certainly needs improvement. I think there are not very many cities in the US where living without a car is truly workable except maybe a few select neighborhoods. Anyone care to start a list? I nominate NYC.
No way Tulsa or many cities in the US can be said to have anything but "workable transit except in a few select neighborhoods/areas." For some areas of Tulsa it will be relatively easy, bur for large areas of Tulsa it will not be possible because of the way it's designed. But more and more are able to offer TOD in ever larger parts of their cities, except for Tulsa because we have not yet made the "transition" to allow for it or fund for it. Would be really nice to be able to at least offer some or even be showing that you are working in that direction like say Dallas and Austin. Salt Lake City is one that has built a system that will blow your mind how far they have come in such a short time, the amount of TOD they have under construction now is amazing. DC is an obvious example where you can live without a car if you want, had a friend visit here who lived in that area and did not have a car. Portland, Seattle, parts of NJ like where I stayed for a while had excellent transit options, Boston, Santa Fe, Chicago, Charlotte, Denver, Los Angeles believe it or not and they have 5 new lines under construction right now. I could go on and on for a lot of cities, that once did not have good transit or TOD that are building up their transit systems, that have zoned for TOD, and seeing their cores really take off and attract people and businesses.
If you gave me a good circulator in downtown, and a circulator that went up Brookside from the two grocery stores there and connected to Cherry Street, Utica Square area, and Downtown. I would be quite happy to live without a car in Tulsa.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 12, 2014, 08:58:51 AM
No way Tulsa or many cities in the US can be said to have anything but "workable transit except in a few select neighborhoods/areas."
If you gave me a good circulator in downtown, and a circulator that went up Brookside from the two grocery stores there and connected to Cherry Street, Utica Square area, and Downtown. I would be quite happy to live without a car in Tulsa.
See the map of Phila, PA for what I think of when I was saying "select neighborhoods".
http://www.phillytrolley.org/trackmap/ptc_track_map.html
The map shown is 1954. There are some regional maps at that site too.
Quote from: Hoss on January 11, 2014, 09:35:31 PM
San Francisco if you live/work in the city limits.
Just over the border in Toronto, and the same can be said for Montreal.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 12, 2014, 08:58:51 AM
No way Tulsa or many cities in the US can be said to have anything but "workable transit except in a few select neighborhoods/areas." For some areas of Tulsa it will be relatively easy, bur for large areas of Tulsa it will not be possible because of the way it's designed. But more and more are able to offer TOD in ever larger parts of their cities, except for Tulsa because we have not yet made the "transition" to allow for it or fund for it. Would be really nice to be able to at least offer some or even be showing that you are working in that direction like say Dallas and Austin. Salt Lake City is one that has built a system that will blow your mind how far they have come in such a short time, the amount of TOD they have under construction now is amazing. DC is an obvious example where you can live without a car if you want, had a friend visit here who lived in that area and did not have a car. Portland, Seattle, parts of NJ like where I stayed for a while had excellent transit options, Boston, Santa Fe, Chicago, Charlotte, Denver, Los Angeles believe it or not and they have 5 new lines under construction right now. I could go on and on for a lot of cities, that once did not have good transit or TOD that are building up their transit systems, that have zoned for TOD, and seeing their cores really take off and attract people and businesses.
If you gave me a good circulator in downtown, and a circulator that went up Brookside from the two grocery stores there and connected to Cherry Street, Utica Square area, and Downtown. I would be quite happy to live without a car in Tulsa.
It would be interesting to see a feasibility finding of what one of these systems would cost to construct, and perhaps more interesting, the projected cost per ride. I suspect that the route you propose (which might make the most sense to run if you could only do one such line in Tulsa) would be quite expensive per trip. I do think it would appeal to folks wanting to shop and hangout in Brookside and Cherry St. However, I believe the success of the route would be largely tied to gaining a sizable number of commuters riding to and from work on a regular (daily) basis to downtown and Utica Square offices, and probably less so on casual ridership numbers for just Brookside and Cherry St destinations (primarily on weekends or evenings).
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 12, 2014, 01:41:58 AM
Hmmm, you can get to SF from San Jose, Fremont, Dublin, and other outlying cities quite easily on BART. Fremont to Embarcadero is ~40 minutes in the morning on a work day.
Back in September, I took BART from Fremont to Embarcadero, and then SF Muni to AT&T park for a game and it took about 50 minutes, and back to Fremont took about 50 minutes, and cost $15.00. Parking near the park was $20.00 and up. If you live in the Bay area, you buy a Muni Pass that also works with BART, and you can include the cable cars and other transit, (yes people use the cable cars in SF for more than tourism) and god forbid you have to walk a half mile to work from your station it's a hell of a lot cheaper than driving and paying for parking and any bridge tolls.
But then again, it requires walking, which is foreign to a lot of people.
I'm only speaking as to what I was familiar with, since I was commuting from within the Mission district. I knew there were other options, but the BART was so easy and quick from that area it was worth noting.
Quote from: Rookie Okie on January 12, 2014, 04:49:13 PM
It would be interesting to see a feasibility finding of what one of these systems would cost to construct, and perhaps more interesting, the projected cost per ride. I suspect that the route you propose (which might make the most sense to run if you could only do one such line in Tulsa) would be quite expensive per trip. I do think it would appeal to folks wanting to shop and hangout in Brookside and Cherry St. However, I believe the success of the route would be largely tied to gaining a sizable number of commuters riding to and from work on a regular (daily) basis to downtown and Utica Square offices, and probably less so on casual ridership numbers for just Brookside and Cherry St destinations (primarily on weekends or evenings).
Wish people would compare the cost of say a bus circulator downtown with the cost of new parking garages downtown. My business chips in a little for the trolley to run downtown. When you consider the cost of a new parking garage could be around 10 mill, and they are considering at least one over time, that could go a long way to having multiple small busses making rather frequent trips. Then they are also talking about putting more parking and parking garages around River-parks, perhaps one by Cherry Street, etc. We all know there is plenty of available parking in and around downtown already. The night of the Justin Bieber concert a while back noticed that there were people parking on Main Street but right there on Main Street is a good sized parking garage that was empty because it was closed in the evening and there is the 6 story parking garage right over my shop where there weren't any people parked either, and I bet there were other parking garages and certainly parking lots in other parts of downtown that were also able to be used. There is ample parking, put in a couple circulator busses that will pass by the downtown hot spots and already available parking, and ramp that number up during busy times. Don't know why people complain about parking downtown, then get so upset when they see an empty bus/trolley and not as upset when they see an empty parking garage or parking lot?
Also mentioned the idea of the Downtown Circulator and the Brookside/Cherry Street one the other day while talking to some friends and it came up that they would be far more likely to try using the bus from other parts of the city to get to those circulator routes. Though it may take a little time to get to those routes, once there you could then easily get to everything else in Downtown/Brookside/Cherry Street, Riverside, etc.
Quote from: Rookie Okie on January 12, 2014, 04:49:13 PM
It would be interesting to see a feasibility finding of what one of these systems would cost to construct, and perhaps more interesting, the projected cost per ride. I suspect that the route you propose (which might make the most sense to run if you could only do one such line in Tulsa) would be quite expensive per trip. I do think it would appeal to folks wanting to shop and hangout in Brookside and Cherry St. However, I believe the success of the route would be largely tied to gaining a sizable number of commuters riding to and from work on a regular (daily) basis to downtown and Utica Square offices, and probably less so on casual ridership numbers for just Brookside and Cherry St destinations (primarily on weekends or evenings).
Here's the thing, we already have a bus system which is under-utilized. I don't see the need for light rail within the city until the bus system is better utilized (at least I assume you were talking about light rail). The question is how do you get more people out of their cars and on to the bus who wouldn't even think of getting on a bus now? Someone I know who owns a PR firm was working on a contract at one point with Tulsa Transit to come up with an image campaign to get more upwardly mobile adults to start riding the bus. I'm guessing either the contract never materialized or the campaign was a failure.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 13, 2014, 08:43:15 AM
Here's the thing, we already have a bus system which is under-utilized. I don't see the need for light rail within the city until the bus system is better utilized (at least I assume you were talking about light rail). The question is how do you get more people out of their cars and on to the bus who wouldn't even think of getting on a bus now? Someone I know who owns a PR firm was working on a contract at one point with Tulsa Transit to come up with an image campaign to get more upwardly mobile adults to start riding the bus. I'm guessing either the contract never materialized or the campaign was a failure.
That system needs serious upgrading though. Not everyone works near or in downtown, and that's what makes it a challenge. I used the system in the early 00s for about six months and realized how broken it really was then. Including transfers, to my work at the time, it took about 1:05 to and about :50 from. And frequency (every 30 minutes) was terrible.
Quote from: Hoss on January 13, 2014, 08:51:38 AM
That system needs serious upgrading though. Not everyone works near or in downtown, and that's what makes it a challenge. I used the system in the early 00s for about six months and realized how broken it really was then. Including transfers, to my work at the time, it took about 1:05 to and about :50 from. And frequency (every 30 minutes) was terrible.
But buses run all over town, not just downtown. It would seem on more popular routes you could add extra buses so that there isn't the awful lack of frequency you alluded to. It's been a very long time since I've ridden a Tulsa Transit bus. Aside from more convenient routing and timing, what sort of other upgrades would you recommend to get more people on the bus? Are they kept clean? Are there transients simply using them as a warm spot to nap? What are other key issues you can see that keep people from taking the bus?
When I was a child, one route came down 26th Street between Harvard and Lewis then proceeded up Lewis to the north and finally ended up downtown. Our house was only three houses off 26th on Delaware. I could use it to get to school and back at Barnard Elementary on rainy days that walking or riding the bike would have sucked. I even took that bus line down to the Central Library and back home on occasion. Of course, that's back before parents had to worry so much about their kids encountering all sorts of creeps out there.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 13, 2014, 09:23:26 AM
But buses run all over town, not just downtown. It would seem on more popular routes you could add extra buses so that there isn't the awful lack of frequency you alluded to. It's been a very long time since I've ridden a Tulsa Transit bus. Aside from more convenient routing and timing, what sort of other upgrades would you recommend to get more people on the bus? Are they kept clean? Are there transients simply using them as a warm spot to nap? What are other key issues you can see that keep people from taking the bus?
When I was a child, one route came down 26th Street between Harvard and Lewis then proceeded up Lewis to the north and finally ended up downtown. Our house was only three houses off 26th on Delaware. I could use it to get to school and back at Barnard Elementary on rainy days that walking or riding the bike would have sucked. I even took that bus line down to the Central Library and back home on occasion. Of course, that's back before parents had to worry so much about their kids encountering all sorts of creeps out there.
Keep in mind this was over a decade ago I used them. I didn't see them being dirty, never really saw transients on them. For me, however, when I worked at Bender, my options were 1) Take the 17 -SW Blvd route out to Sand Springs and back into downtown (usually I did this because the frequency was so low on this I would have to wait 30 minutes at the stop, so I just hopped it outbound), transfer to the 3 (3rd St/Memorial) then get off at 16th and Memorial in front of my apartment. Or 2) walk across the 23rd St bridge, pick up the 21 route across the street from the park, get off at 21st/Memorial and lug another half mile home. I didn't mind the walk, and that usually was a quicker commute, but still took some time from leaving work to home.
I think more frequency would do better. The routes have changed a bit since they added the mid town transfer station at 33rd and Memorial (or thereabouts), but I was hoping PlaniTulsa would get involved with looking at the lines to see how they would best serve the city and other areas around it.
I've been on one of the busses recently in a parade, and found it very clean and comfortable.
We see the one that comes down Lewis regularly. During the first of the month it's packed with folks going to the 71st st. Walmart. If you need to shop at that store, it's best to go at the end of the month. We've learned to stay away on the 1st through the 10th.
I think that bus must come from an area without a grocery store, because those folks pack up groceries, some bring garbage bags to put all of their Walmart bags in. The ritual repeats every month.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 13, 2014, 10:03:50 AM
I've been on one of the busses recently in a parade, and found it very clean and comfortable.
We see the one that comes down Lewis regularly. During the first of the month it's packed with folks going to the 71st st. Walmart. If you need to shop at that store, it's best to go at the end of the month. We've learned to stay away on the 1st through the 10th.
I think that bus must come from an area without a grocery store, because those folks pack up groceries, some bring garbage bags to put all of their Walmart bags in. The ritual repeats every month.
I've not been on one of the new CNG buses. They do look nice.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 13, 2014, 08:43:15 AM
Here's the thing, we already have a bus system which is under-utilized. I don't see the need for light rail within the city until the bus system is better utilized (at least I assume you were talking about light rail). The question is how do you get more people out of their cars and on to the bus who wouldn't even think of getting on a bus now? Someone I know who owns a PR firm was working on a contract at one point with Tulsa Transit to come up with an image campaign to get more upwardly mobile adults to start riding the bus. I'm guessing either the contract never materialized or the campaign was a failure.
Higher frequency will help some but at some point you will be putting in more and more money with less and less "return" because we have made it illegal to have good transit oriented development. All the money and frequency in the world will not get you good ridership numbers if people can not or will not walk because the zoning makes it uncomfortable to do so. We zone for "comfortable" car oriented development, and get it, but we do not zone for transit oriented development, and we do not get it.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 13, 2014, 01:14:58 PM
Higher frequency will help some but at some point you will be putting in more and more money with less and less "return" because we have made it illegal to have good transit oriented development. All the money and frequency in the world will not get you good ridership numbers if people can not or will not walk because the zoning makes it uncomfortable to do so. We zone for "comfortable" car oriented development, and get it, but we do not zone for transit oriented development, and we do not get it.
I point to buses only because they require no additional infrastructure to improve the system. I understand they are less efficient, but the cost to add more buses is incrementally cheaper than adding rail lines as far as mass transit.
Do you really think it's all a zoning issue or is it more of a product of general laziness to leave our cars behind? There are many places I will ride my bike for commuting or even shopping even though the direct routes to get to, say, the Cherry St. Farmer's Market from our house are less than hospitable to cyclists. Mrs. Conan and I are also the sort that if we go downtown with multiple destinations within a mile area, we just park and walk where we want to go. Or we just figure out the least heavily traveled route by cars and ride our bikes downtown and then from place to place. Maybe that's why I'm somewhat oblivious to walkability issues or what sort of zoning issues seem to prevent people from riding, walking, or taking public transit. Maybe the reason I see it that way is I usually walked, biked, or took public transit to school from 2nd through 5th grade and my brother and friends all either rode or walked to each other's houses or down to the convenience store or to run an errand to the market for our parents. We did our paper routes by bike or on foot. Perhaps the early exposure to a more pedestrian lifestyle that has stuck with me in some way that I've never grown out of.
I do know my limitations and what is a good and bad idea when it comes to cycling. I generally will avoid busy thoroughfares, especially the narrower ones in mid-town, and just about any out in suburbia until it gets out to about 101st St. just so I can piss Guido and the other Southies off. ;D But, I can literally get to anywhere in the city by taking side streets. You have to think a little harder to do it but it's not like it's a great effort. Even if they did put bike lanes in out in the retail Hell corridor (71st St.) there's no way I'd trust distracted drivers looking for signs and storefronts enough to use them.
Based on that reasoning, does it sound like more of an
image issue that it's too hard to get around, or unsafe to ride or walk? Would changing zoning get people out of the decades-old mindset that we must have a car to go everywhere? I'm not picking on your points, I'm simply tossing out some rhetorical points for us all to consider what would really motivate people to leave the car behind or to be willing to walk 6 or 12 blocks.
The only reason I don't ride a bike to work or take a bus every day is I have to have a car to carry out my work duties. If I had a company vehicle, I would leave it at the office and use it during the day but find an alternate way to commute to the office.
Only takes 10-20 minutes to get downtown via Riverside or 169. I'm willing to bet the bus is a good hour. Combine that with standing out in the cold/heat/rain/arctic tundra and the lack of flexibility once you arrive at your destination, and you have the reason that the bus is not a popular option.
Our britches just aren't that big yet.
When the hassle of driving, parking, and the associated cost exceeds that of taking a bus, we will be ready. People can want us to be like other cities all they want, but until we have the problems of other cities, we aren't justified spending money on the solutions of other cities.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 13, 2014, 02:51:19 PM
I point to buses only because they require no additional infrastructure to improve the system. I understand they are less efficient, but the cost to add more buses is incrementally cheaper than adding rail lines as far as mass transit.
Pretty much everything I have read indicates that riders of choice will choose rail over automobiles when they will not choose a bus over their automobile.
QuoteDo you really think it's all a zoning issue or is it more of a product of general laziness to leave our cars behind?
Since I am the only person in Tulsa Co that objects to paying for parking ( ;D), zoning is a contributor. Headway/frequency is another contributor. General convenience of the car over Transit in Tulsa is a contributor. I would probably not take transit to go grocery shopping or some other shopping that involves lugging a bunch of stuff home. I would consider reasonably convenient transit (well, a trolley but probably not a bus) to go to work or out for an evening. I wouldn't tolerate 30 minute or more headway time during any busy time of the day.
There was a (real) trolley in the town where I grew up that went right past the High School and Jr. High School. I took the trolley to school if the weather was bad. School tickets were less than 1/2 price at $.11 when bought at least 4 at a time. If I missed the trolley, another would be along in less than 10 minutes at that time of day.
QuoteMaybe the reason I see it that way is I usually walked, biked, or took public transit to school from 2nd through 5th grade and my brother and friends all either rode or walked to each other's houses or down to the convenience store or to run an errand to the market for our parents. We did our paper routes by bike or on foot. Perhaps the early exposure to a more pedestrian lifestyle that has stuck with me in some way that I've never grown out of.
First through 8th grade was walk or bike except in bad weather and then sometimes even then. 9th grade was walk because it wasn't "cool" to ride a bike to school. 11th grade I mostly got a ride from a 12th grade friend that had a car because his family moved out of town but kept him in our school for his senior year. Senior year it was back to walking except occasionally I got the family car on Fridays. Not all baby boomers are afraid to walk.
QuoteI generally will avoid busy thoroughfares, especially the narrower ones in mid-town, and just about any out in suburbia until it gets out to about 101st St. just so I can piss Guido and the other Southies off. ;D
You are a mile short. You need to come out to 111th. Out here we have a contest. 2 points for each bicyclist run off the road. 3 points if they damage their bicycle too much to ride home. First driver to 100 points wins. There is a penalty of 4 points though if an ambulance is needed for the bicyclist. We try to keep it sporting. ;D
QuoteWould changing zoning get people out of the decades-old mindset that we must have a car to go everywhere? I'm not picking on your points, I'm simply tossing out some rhetorical points for us all to consider what would really motivate people to leave the car behind or to be willing to walk 6 or 12 blocks.
When transit is at least close to convenience of a car, people will take transit. There will always be some holdouts though.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 13, 2014, 06:34:43 PM
Pretty much everything I have read indicates that riders of choice will choose rail over automobiles when they will not choose a bus over their automobile.
Since I am the only person in Tulsa Co that objects to paying for parking ( ;D), zoning is a contributor. Headway/frequency is another contributor. General convenience of the car over Transit in Tulsa is a contributor. I would probably not take transit to go grocery shopping or some other shopping that involves lugging a bunch of stuff home. I would consider reasonably convenient transit (well, a trolley but probably not a bus) to go to work or out for an evening. I wouldn't tolerate 30 minute or more headway time during any busy time of the day.
There was a (real) trolley in the town where I grew up that went right past the High School and Jr. High School. I took the trolley to school if the weather was bad. School tickets were less than 1/2 price at $.11 when bought at least 4 at a time. If I missed the trolley, another would be along in less than 10 minutes at that time of day.
First through 8th grade was walk or bike except in bad weather and then sometimes even then. 9th grade was walk because it wasn't "cool" to ride a bike to school. 11th grade I mostly got a ride from a 12th grade friend that had a car because his family moved out of town but kept him in our school for his senior year. Senior year it was back to walking except occasionally I got the family car on Fridays. Not all baby boomers are afraid to walk.
You are a mile short. You need to come out to 111th. Out here we have a contest. 2 points for each bicyclist run off the road. 3 points if they damage their bicycle too much to ride home. First driver to 100 points wins. There is a penalty of 4 points though if an ambulance is needed for the bicyclist. We try to keep it sporting. ;D
When transit is at least close to convenience of a car, people will take transit. There will always be some holdouts though.
Good points.
When we moved to 85th & Toledo before my 6th grade year, all of the Jenks campus was still at 1st & B Street in Jenks so it required either parents driving you to school or the bus. Once kids got their license, they drove to school. Or for a lucky few at age 14 you could get a motorcycle license. As it was anywhere from four to ten miles for kids to get to Jenks, motorized transport was the way to go. I would still use my bike to get around the neighborhood or go to the store until I got my driver's license, then I wanted to drive everywhere.
After my freshman year, I ended up going to Cascia Hall in midtown, so driving was absolutely necessary from out where we lived.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 13, 2014, 07:58:04 PM
After my freshman year, I ended up going to Cascia Hall in midtown, so driving was absolutely necessary from out where we lived.
You had your license after your freshman year? Flunk a year or two? I didn't turn 16 until my Junior year (fall birthday). ;D
Imho I think zoning actually trumps transit as a priority.
Few points.
1. If you create good pedestrian/transit friendly streets, people will get out more and walk, and yes bike.
2. Increased mix-use density can decrease the number and length of car and transit trips.
(Actually when I think of it, if downtown were to keep infilling, increasing and diversifying its offerings, I wouldn't even have as much a desire to go to areas like Brookside and Cherry Street because everything would be right near me so I actually wouldn't feel the need to go to those areas).
One interesting example I have some numbers for is Portland.
From 2000-2012 the City of Portland saw it's Commuter Transit Mode "Share" decline from 12.3% to 11.9%
Now that may not look good at first glance but...
This is "Commuter" share not "all trips made". (Some numbers in Dallas for instance show that in 2012 they had 4,188 rail "commuters" but each day saw over 100,000 weekday boardings.)
The number of people using transit in Portland has actually increased, but population also increased.
Also car usage has declined in Portland while walking and yes Conan, bike ridership has increased. (from 2005-2009 citywide bicycle use increased by 20%)
I think it still interesting from the replies I get that you still see people thinking of transit as primarily a means for commuters to get to work when that can actually be a fraction of its use. Also people seem to forget that TOD is important for once your in a TOD area, whether you use transit to get there or not, by being in and having those areas you decrease the length and or number of car trips. In Tulsa if you want to go get a haircut you likely have to get in my car and go there, then if you want to go to the post office, car again, run to the drug store, car, grocery store, clothing, restaurant, etc. etc. most trips require a car. However if your in or you get to a TOD or a higher density/pedestrian friendly/mixed use area, many of those trips can be easily made on foot or bike cause they are right around the corner. So in actuality, good TOD or mixed/use pedestrian friendly areas can decrease both auto and transit trips, while increasing pedestrian/cycle "usage".
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 13, 2014, 08:24:25 PM
You had your license after your freshman year? Flunk a year or two? I didn't turn 16 until my Junior year (fall birthday). ;D
Got it November of my Sophomore year. I was one of the "hold-backs" that was born after November 1 when they instituted that as the arbitrary date to establish what age to start your child in Kindergarten. My birthday falls on Nov. 26 so I was always one of the oldest in my class. Kind of the Jethro Bodine, if you will ;D All my buddies wanted to catch a ride with me, I had an El Camino then a Ford EXP so there wasn't a whole lot of room to haul friends around...somewhat on purpose.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 14, 2014, 09:32:37 AM
Imho I think zoning actually trumps transit as a priority.
Few points.
1. If you create good pedestrian/transit friendly streets, people will get out more and walk, and yes bike.
2. Increased mix-use density can decrease the number and length of car and transit trips.
(Actually when I think of it, if downtown were to keep infilling, increasing and diversifying its offerings, I wouldn't even have as much a desire to go to areas like Brookside and Cherry Street because everything would be right near me so I actually wouldn't feel the need to go to those areas).
One interesting example I have some numbers for is Portland.
From 2000-2012 the City of Portland saw it's Commuter Transit Mode "Share" decline from 12.3% to 11.9%
Now that may not look good at first glance but...
This is "Commuter" share not "all trips made". (Some numbers in Dallas for instance show that in 2012 they had 4,188 rail "commuters" but each day saw over 100,000 weekday boardings.)
The number of people using transit in Portland has actually increased, but population also increased.
Also car usage has declined in Portland while walking and yes Conan, bike ridership has increased. (from 2005-2009 citywide bicycle use increased by 20%)
I think it still interesting from the replies I get that you still see people thinking of transit as primarily a means for commuters to get to work when that can actually be a fraction of its use. Also people seem to forget that TOD is important for once your in a TOD area, whether you use transit to get there or not, by being in and having those areas you decrease the length and or number of car trips. In Tulsa if you want to go get a haircut you likely have to get in my car and go there, then if you want to go to the post office, car again, run to the drug store, car, grocery store, clothing, restaurant, etc. etc. most trips require a car. However if your in or you get to a TOD or a higher density/pedestrian friendly/mixed use area, many of those trips can be easily made on foot or bike cause they are right around the corner. So in actuality, good TOD or mixed/use pedestrian friendly areas can decrease both auto and transit trips, while increasing pedestrian/cycle "usage".
Interesting points, thank you for replying. Portland is considered somewhat of a Mecca amongst urban cyclists. In ten years, I could see where someone could manage to live in downtown Tulsa and not own a car if they worked downtown as well.
MC and I hit Cherry St. for the farmer's market in season and we occasionally need something from a store along there. We never hit Brookside to shop and it's rare we even eat along there, now that my daughter is no longer working at SR Hughes. She and I would have lunch about once a week somewhere in the near area.
For that matter, the young hipster crowd is already doing that to an extent. One I can think of is Chloe, the little blonde girl that works or worked at Mods doesn't own a car, she lives in the Brady and goes everywhere by bike. I would love to be less car-dependent, Tulsa drivers keep my blood pressure up!
Quote from: TheArtist on January 13, 2014, 01:14:58 PM
Higher frequency will help some but at some point you will be putting in more and more money with less and less "return" because we have made it illegal to have good transit oriented development.
Thankfully, some parts of town still have it from back when that was just how you built a city. As you mentioned earlier, a circulator between DT and cherry street and brookside would be fantastic. Hell, even leave out brookside. When Reasors reopens, it will again be (somewhat unpleasantly) walkable for most people in that area. Folks trying to live on Cherry Street or DT are the people that really need a connection to staple shopping. It could be Brookside. It could be 21st and Yale, or it could be the WH Market on Lewis. What is important is to make it possible without > 1mi walks.
I can't help but think that even Dewey will have to come around when those areas near the circulator are packed to the gills and people are clamoring for more. Or maybe it won't work. It definitely won't work if we don't even try.
Rookie Okie: On street electric trolley construction costs are between $5 and $10 million a mile. If you include headhouses, maintenance shops, and a bunch of other stuff, you get to the $30 million a mile some (very short) projects have cost. Expanding those projects won't cost anywhere near that because those other included items have already been built, but that has been the cost for the initial phase of some recent trolley/streetcar systems. A DT/Cherry Street/Brookside circulator would probably cost between $60 and $100 million depending on exactly how we route it, how much of it is double-tracked/has passing areas, and exactly what number and what kind of stops we put in. Future expansion would be closer to the straight track and station cost, as with any system.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 14, 2014, 09:38:53 AM
Got it November of my Sophomore year. I was one of the "hold-backs" that was born after November 1 when they instituted that as the arbitrary date to establish what age to start your child in Kindergarten. My birthday falls on Nov. 26 so I was always one of the oldest in my class. Kind of the Jethro Bodine, if you will ;D All my buddies wanted to catch a ride with me, I had an El Camino then a Ford EXP so there wasn't a whole lot of room to haul friends around...somewhat on purpose.
I had a beetle and could still get 6 with one in the trunk...
Quote from: nathanm on January 14, 2014, 03:33:31 PM
Thankfully, some parts of town still have it from back when that was just how you built a city. As you mentioned earlier, a circulator between DT and cherry street and brookside would be fantastic. Hell, even leave out brookside. When Reasors reopens, it will again be (somewhat unpleasantly) walkable for most people in that area. Folks trying to live on Cherry Street or DT are the people that really need a connection to staple shopping. It could be Brookside. It could be 21st and Yale, or it could be the WH Market on Lewis. What is important is to make it possible without > 1mi walks.
I can't help but think that even Dewey will have to come around when those areas near the circulator are packed to the gills and people are clamoring for more. Or maybe it won't work. It definitely won't work if we don't even try.
Rookie Okie: On street electric trolley construction costs are between $5 and $10 million a mile. If you include headhouses, maintenance shops, and a bunch of other stuff, you get to the $30 million a mile some (very short) projects have cost. Expanding those projects won't cost anywhere near that because those other included items have already been built, but that has been the cost for the initial phase of some recent trolley/streetcar systems. A DT/Cherry Street/Brookside circulator would probably cost between $60 and $100 million depending on exactly how we route it, how much of it is double-tracked/has passing areas, and exactly what number and what kind of stops we put in. Future expansion would be closer to the straight track and station cost, as with any system.
I fail to see what the added motivation is for someone to ride a railed trolley rather than a bus given the same route dynamics. Mass transportation is mass transportation.
At a cost of up to $30 million per mile, it will never happen in Tulsa. Any real transportation vision under this administration is nothing short of a pipe dream.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 14, 2014, 04:25:29 PM
I fail to see what the added motivation is for someone to ride a railed trolley rather than a bus given the same route dynamics. Mass transportation is mass transportation.
I fail to see why people like to eat asparagus, but many do.
My personal experience with trolleys is with them running more in a interurban mode than a streetcar mode. I remember sitting in the trolley at the 69th St Terminal waiting for departure. The trolley was quiet except for the occasional sound of the air compressor. The trolley made no noxious fumes. The buses a few yards away were noisy and made stinky diesel exhaust fumes. The tracks on the route I rode were in pretty good shape so the ride in the trolley was fairly smooth. The trolleys were from 1932 and newer (with a few exceptions in really nasty, snowy weather when extra, older trolleys were added for the extra riders) with upholstered seating. Running noise in the trolleys was also significantly less than the buses. Trolleys got up to speed quicker than buses which made for shorter route times. On the down side, the older trolleys from the turn of the 19th to 20th century typically had wood seats and had inferior ride dynamics. The single truck trolleys evidently bounced around quite a bit. When buses started to take over trolley routes, the nearly new buses were smoother and more comfortable due to deferred maintenance and older equipment on the part of trolley lines. Trolley companies typically had to maintain both the rails and the streets they ran on which were also used by buses for free. Guess which mode had the economic advantage. PCC trolleys were developed specifically to combat the rising use of buses. Smoother, more comfortable, quieter... than the previous generations of trolleys.
One of my friends grew up in the age of declining trolley quality. He wasn't too enthused about riding the trolley to dinner in Memphis several years ago but I managed to talk our party into taking the trolley to dinner, twice. The rest of the group was more willing to try something new to them. I couldn't understand the desire to get the car out of the underground parking lot, drive a mile, find a place to park, still walk a few blocks to dinner and then reverse the operation.
Rails mean that where the trolley went yesterday, it will in all probability go today. Find a trolley with the destination sign you want and you can be pretty sure no one changed the interim stops with a pen overnight. It gives riders the confidence to get on-board.
Economic analysis using equivalent life spans of equipment make rail more attractive than the initial cash required to get started but that is not part of why you would want hop on a trolley rather than a bus with all else being equal. If buses were required to directly contribute to street maintenance the trolley would be even more attractive.
69th St Transportation Center (used to be "terminal")
http://goo.gl/maps/2UeQ6
It's obviously biased but for almost everything you want to know about Light Rail:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/index.htm
Enjoy!
Phoenix light rail was $1.4 Billion for 20 miles, or $70,000,000.00 per mile.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/09/20081209lrail-money1209.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/09/20081209lrail-money1209.html)
And a new expansion proposed in LA is
Quote
On January 4th, Los Angeles's Crenshaw light rail transit (LRT) project got a huge boost forward, winning final approval from the U.S. Federal Transit Administration, according to a Jan. 4th report in the LA-area Daily Breeze newspaper.
Funded by Measure R, a half-cent sales tax increase approved by LA County voters in 2008, the 8.5-mile (13.7-km) Crenshaw LRT line, currently estimated at $1.72 billion, is a project of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) that would run partly along Crenshaw Boulevard, connecting the Green Line near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to the Expo Line. (See map below.) Because of its link to the airport, it's also known as the Crenshaw/LAX line.
or $202,000,000. per mile, according to the link provided.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2012q1.html (http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2012q1.html)
Apparently Dallas Light Rail is not doing that well,
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20120611-editorial-wheres-the-dart-ridership-plan.ece (http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20120611-editorial-wheres-the-dart-ridership-plan.ece)
http://www.costaustin.org/jskaggs/?p=2771 (http://www.costaustin.org/jskaggs/?p=2771)
And Tri Met in Portland is losing ridership, cutting services, and raising fares as well
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/06/trimet_board_kills_portlands_f.html (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/06/trimet_board_kills_portlands_f.html)
Quote from: Conan71 on January 14, 2014, 04:25:29 PM
I fail to see what the added motivation is for someone to ride a railed trolley rather than a bus given the same route dynamics. Mass transportation is mass transportation.
I think a motivator for light rail is that it would take us off the raggedy roads that make up Tulsa, if only for a few miles. Kidding aside, (ground) mass transportation = (ground) mass transportation if one form cannot get you from A to B any quicker than another. However, (underground) mass T >> (ground) mass T when considering that a subway train is often the fastest mode of transportation of any type in large urban centers such as NYC.
At a cost of up to $30 million per mile, it will never happen in Tulsa. Any real transportation vision under this administration is nothing short of a pipe dream.
I agree (ground) mass transportation = (ground) mass transportation if one form cannot get you from A to B any quicker than another. I think a motivator for light rail is that it would take us off the raggedy roads that make up Tulsa, if only for a few miles (just kidding). However, I suspect that light rail may have some added appeal as being more modern, hipper, worldly, trendy, and upscale than conventional buses to some folks. To sum it up, light rail seems/sounds/feels more "sexier" than the bus. Just say, I'm running off to the train or I gotta catch the bus? Which sounds cooler? I do think that there would be some people who would take a trolley before a bus, and there may be some that would take a trolley that wouldn't ride a bus at all. I just don't know if there are enough of them to justify even the one proposed trolley route given the prohibitive cost to construct.
I understand that even modest improvements to what passes for bus service in Tulsa is of considerably low priority for the administration, and that is unfortunate. Worse though it appears as though the city has ignored or greatly underscored by far its biggest transportation related headache which is the abysmal condition of virtually the entire network of the city's streets and roads. I glanced at the website detailing the "Fix our Streets" initiative and my initial thought was that it wouldn't cover all that much of what is needed (from a newcomer's perspective trying to navigate rough roads in every area of town).
BTW, can someone please enlighten me as to how did a city like Tulsa allow its streets to crumble to a state of almost total neglect? It pains me to say this, but I can't think of a U.S or Canadian city with roads in worse shape, and this includes places such as Detroit and Camden NJ that are truly broke(n) as well as heavily road salted winter cities such as Rochester, Boston, and Pittsburgh.
I'd like to know from anyone here as to whether we should expect to see significant improvement in Tulsa's roads over the next 3 - 5 years, within 5 -10 years, or perhaps not much at all.
Quote from: Rookie Okie on January 15, 2014, 12:35:53 AM
I'd like to know from anyone here as to whether we should expect to see significant improvement in Tulsa's roads over the next 3 - 5 years, within 5 -10 years, or perhaps not much at all.
Since we are starting from such a state of disrepair, significant improvement won't take much effort. :D
Roads aren't cheap either.
Project Overview
The stretch of I-44 between Riverside Dr. and Yale Ave. in Tulsa is one of the oldest sections of interstate in Oklahoma. (In fact, it was built before the creation of the Interstate System in 1956!) The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is working to widen this area from four lanes to six, and to upgrade the intersections at Riverside Dr., Peoria Ave., Lewis Ave. and Harvard Avenue. This nearly $400 million project will greatly improve the traffic flow and safety for this corridor.
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i44riverside/
With the way we build roads around here, I'll be surprised if it doesn't need major maintenance within 10 years.
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 14, 2014, 11:44:18 PM
Apparently Dallas Light Rail is not doing that well,
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20120611-editorial-wheres-the-dart-ridership-plan.ece (http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20120611-editorial-wheres-the-dart-ridership-plan.ece)
http://www.costaustin.org/jskaggs/?p=2771 (http://www.costaustin.org/jskaggs/?p=2771)
And Tri Met in Portland is losing ridership, cutting services, and raising fares as well
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/06/trimet_board_kills_portlands_f.html (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/06/trimet_board_kills_portlands_f.html)
Each one of these communities has problems and oddly enough in polar opposite ways.
Dallas did not do adequate zoning. You have heard me say that zoning trumps transit as a priority and decrying their "fake urbanity". Apparently from the article they still have minimum parking requirements, even with their TOD!? You have got to be kidding me? lol
Portland has multiple difficulties and opportunities, one "problem" in that though transit ridership is down, because of their better zoning pedestrian "trips" and cycling have dramatically increased and car ridership too is down. Also they seem to be having political problems that are increasing the price of fares which may decrease ridership, while in some areas they cut bus service due to budget constraints they are now having to increase service on lines because of overcrowding.
From the article above...
"At the same time, TriMet expects to add service on seven bus lines to alleviate overcrowding: 4, 9, 33, 35, 44, 76 and 94.
Officials initially said they needed to deal with a budget shortfall of up to $17 million. But the agency hopes a third-party arbitrator rules in its favor in the long-simmering labor dispute with Amalgamated Transit Union 757.
The unresolved union contract, which ended in 2009, adds $5 million to $10 million to the fiscal year 2013 budget shortfall, said TriMet spokeswoman Mary Fetsch.
At the heart of the dispute is the generous health care and retirement package for unionized drivers and mechanics, which is one of the most generous for public employees in the country."
When we did the transit studies for Tulsa they had experts from other cities come to Tulsa and say how lucky we were on several fronts. We are at just the right stage to set the stage for good transit. And because we are behind them in development, we are actually in the position to learn from their mistakes and heed their lessons learned. Get your zoning in place, your right of ways, TOD development properties bought up, etc. now so that when in the future you do consider putting in transit you will be sooooo much better off.
Many young cities wait too long to prepare and then regret the actions they should have taken sooner. They find they can no longer easily or affordably put the rail where it would have been best and have to settle for awkward configurations that cost more and are more difficult to get riders on for example.
Let me say again. I do not think we are ready for rail transit... but if we do think we will want it in the future, we are falling behind and actually making decisions that will make it more expensive and difficult. The longer we wait to prepare, the more expensive and difficult it will be to implement if and when we decide to.
My personal priority above rail, and even improved bus transit, at this time is zoning for good pedestrian/transit friendly development. We are in the position to begin creating super high quality urban areas that could smack down and out compete anything Dallas, Denver or Austin has and really ramp up our competitiveness/attractiveness,,, before putting in a single rail line. We may find we won't even really need rail for a long long time. (but it would only be prudent and wise to prepare for that possibility none the less).
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 15, 2014, 07:43:50 AM
Roads aren't cheap either.
Project Overview
The stretch of I-44 between Riverside Dr. and Yale Ave. in Tulsa is one of the oldest sections of interstate in Oklahoma. (In fact, it was built before the creation of the Interstate System in 1956!) The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is working to widen this area from four lanes to six, and to upgrade the intersections at Riverside Dr., Peoria Ave., Lewis Ave. and Harvard Avenue. This nearly $400 million project will greatly improve the traffic flow and safety for this corridor.
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i44riverside/
With the way we build roads around here, I'll be surprised if it doesn't need major maintenance within 10 years.
So about 100 million per mile. Imagine how much it might cost to widen the BA in the future? Yet it was estimated to cost about 130 mill to put a 14 mile rail system in with stations from downtown Tulsa to Downtown BA. They also pointed out that if the city owned property for TOD at the fin-tube site, one or two properties between and BA owned some TOD property those properties could help pay for the transit. SLC did that in some instances and just read about one new one that is already making a profit from property leases to developers and that profit is going to pay for the transit. Use the properties as park and ride first then build up with good pedestrian/transit friendly zoned development. Use the increased income to pay for the transit and increase frequency. I remember the transit people from Austin and Dallas just drooled and looked amazed at the fortunate fact that we already have a rail line right from our downtown into the downtown of our biggest suburb.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 15, 2014, 07:43:50 AM
Roads aren't cheap either.
Project Overview
The stretch of I-44 between Riverside Dr. and Yale Ave. in Tulsa is one of the oldest sections of interstate in Oklahoma. (In fact, it was built before the creation of the Interstate System in 1956!) The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is working to widen this area from four lanes to six, and to upgrade the intersections at Riverside Dr., Peoria Ave., Lewis Ave. and Harvard Avenue. This nearly $400 million project will greatly improve the traffic flow and safety for this corridor.
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i44riverside/
With the way we build roads around here, I'll be surprised if it doesn't need major maintenance within 10 years.
This is a very involved project which has required construction of all new bridges, acquiring quite a bit of commercial and residential real estate for right of way and having to demo it, all new drainage run off, creating by-passes to keep traffic flowing throughout the project, sound attenuation walls, expanding the Riverside bridge at the east end, extensive excavation, etc.
In other words, it's a pretty atypical cost for road construction.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 15, 2014, 09:48:09 AM
This is a very involved project which has required construction of all new bridges, acquiring quite a bit of commercial and residential real estate for right of way and having to demo it, all new drainage run off, creating by-passes to keep traffic flowing throughout the project, sound attenuation walls, expanding the Riverside bridge at the east end, extensive excavation, etc.
In other words, it's a pretty atypical cost for road construction.
I don't imagine the Crenshaw addition to the LA Light Rail is a cake walk either. Also, light rail is a step up in performance and cost from streetcar/trolleys. Little Rock claims to have spent approximately $8 Million/track mile on their initial 2-1/2 mile system including trolleys and maintenance facilities in 2003. The inflation calculator puts that about $10 Million/track mile in 2013 dollars, $8.7 Million/track mile in 2006.
Road construction costs:
QuoteQuestion: What is the cost of constructing a mile of highway?
All costs shown in the following text have been adjusted to 2006 dollars.
Adding a Single Lane to an Existing Highway:
FHWA's Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) includes input values for the typical costs of a variety if highway improvements, including the cost of adding a lane to an existing highway. The unit cost per lane-mile for adding an additional lane includes a portion of the cost to cover bridges, interchanges, environmental issues, etc. for a normal project. However, a project with a large number of bridges, complicated interchanges, major environmental issues, and other extreme engineering and environmental issues will result in a higher cost per lane-mile.
Separate cost factors are used for urban and rural areas. In urban areas, widening costs are further disaggregated by the type of roadway (freeways, other divided highways, and undivided roads), and vary from $2.4 million to $6.9 million per lane-mile. In rural areas, costs depend upon highway functional class (Interstates, arterial roads, and collectors) and terrain type, and range from $1.6 million to $3.1 million per lane-mile.
The model also assumes higher construction costs in areas where widening might be especially difficult or costly, such as densely developed urban areas or environmentally sensitive rural areas. These are termed "high cost lanes" and can range from $7.3 million to $15.4 million per lane-mile for construction in urban areas to $5.8 million to $9.9 million per lane-mile in rural areas.
http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/policy/07-29-2008%20Generic%20Response%20to%20Cost%20per%20Lane%20Mile%20for%20widening%20and%20new%20construction.pdf
From the FHWA directly:
For the 2004 C&P report, significant changes were made to the structure of the HERS improvement cost matrix, the assumed unit costs in that matrix, and the manner in which those values were applied. The improvement cost updates reflected in the 2004 report were based on highway project data from six States (see Appendix A of that report for more information). Though adequate in most respects, that dataset was relatively thin in certain key areas. The 2004 update disaggregated the improvement cost values in urban areas by functional class and by urbanized area size. Three population groupings were used: small urban (5,000 to 49,999), small urbanized (50,000 to 200,000), and large urbanized (more than 200,000). However, the data used to create values for the latter group did not include a significant number of projects in very large urbanized areas, and concerns were raised about the degree of construction cost comparability between medium-sized cities and much larger ones.
For the 2006 C&P report, additional project cost data were collected for large urbanized areas, rural mountainous regions, and high-cost capacity improvements. These data were used to update the HERS improvement cost matrix, which was also modified to include a new category for major urbanized areas over 1 million in population. The HERS improvement cost matrix was adjusted further for this report, based on some additional analysis of the data previously collected.
Exhibit A-3 identifies the costs per lane mile assumed by HERS for different types of capital improvements. For rural areas, separate cost values are applied by terrain type and functional class, while costs are broken down for urban areas by population area size and type of highway. These costs are intended to reflect the typical values for these types of projects in 2006. However, the project level data on which these estimates are based reveal a considerable amount of variability in costs, which can be attributed to a number of location-specific factors. For example, while the unit costs per lane mile for adding an additional lane are based on project data that reflect the costs of improving bridges, modifying interchanges, and addressing environmental issues, these values represent the average costs for a typical project. However, a project with a large number of bridges, complicated interchanges, major environmental issues, and/or other extreme engineering issues would be expected to cost considerably more that a less complex project.
Exhibit A-3
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2008cpr/appa.htm
The table doesn't copy as a table so go to the link and scroll to the bottom of the page.
Little Rock Trolley:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_lr_001.htm
Quote from: Rookie Okie on January 15, 2014, 12:35:53 AM
I just don't know if there are enough of them to justify even the one proposed trolley route given the prohibitive cost to construct.
I have to take exception to the characterization of the cost as prohibitive. The downtown circulator would cost about the same as a couple of intersection widening projects in south Tulsa.
dbacks: Few are asking for full on light rail with dedicated right of way, which would indeed cost a mint. Bringing up those sorts of projects and their high costs in a discussion about a street running trolley only serves to confuse the issue. And personally, I don't want the BA line to be built at all if they plan to run it the way that has been discussed in the past. There's little point in a service that only runs around rush hour, and ridership will be correspondingly poor. That poor ridership will be used by the reflexive rail opponents as an argument against any rail at all, leaving us worse off than doing nothing at all.
Quote from: nathanm on January 15, 2014, 10:35:51 PM
I have to take exception to the characterization of the cost as prohibitive. The downtown circulator would cost about the same as a couple of intersection widening projects in south Tulsa.
No argument there, a downtown circulator is a good idea, and maybe two of them working in opposite directions could decrease wait time and increase usage.
Quotedbacks: Few are asking for full on light rail with dedicated right of way, which would indeed cost a mint. Bringing up those sorts of projects and their high costs in a discussion about a street running trolley only serves to confuse the issue. And personally, I don't want the BA line to be built at all if they plan to run it the way that has been discussed in the past. There's little point in a service that only runs around rush hour, and ridership will be correspondingly poor. That poor ridership will be used by the reflexive rail opponents as an argument against any rail at all, leaving us worse off than doing nothing at all.
I was just referencing two systems I have used, Phoenix and Portland, and one that people seem to reference quite a bit DART, in Dallas. When they did the rail in Phoenix, there wasn't a lot of right of way that needed to be purchased because they ran the tracks, a two track system, down the center of the streets until they reach downtown near the main bus transfer station where they split and form a ring around downtown, then go back to parallel, placed all of the stations between the tracks, except downtown, and the best or smartest is they ran it through part of ASU.
I have used Tri Met, and I find it a bit confusing as I don't spend that much time in Portland proper the times that I have been there. As for the labor talks, they are still going on I believe, and think about this for a moment, the labor discussions are entering it's fifth year.
The rail line between DT and BA has always looked inviting, but as a single line it would only be useful, just my thinking as an inbound in the mornings and outbound in the evenings, but just doesn't seem doable, and I wonder what the freight carrier on that line thinks of sharing.
If you guys want some interesting reading on highway costs, checkout this article about replacing the I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/01/columbia_river_crossing_buildi.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/01/columbia_river_crossing_buildi.html)
If you know any investors, the cost is only $2.8 Billion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 15, 2014, 10:34:55 PM
Little Rock claims to have spent approximately $8 Million/track mile on their initial 2-1/2 mile system including trolleys and maintenance facilities in 2003. The inflation calculator puts that about $10 Million/track mile in 2013 dollars, $8.7 Million/track mile in 2006.
To be fair, that's a heritage trolley that has few to no amenities at any of its stops, so the rolling stock and station costs are both lower than what we would probably want here outside of the downtown circulator. That said, it's much closer to what we'd be looking at than a light rail project or even Seattle's $30 million a mile cost.
Quote from: nathanm on January 16, 2014, 12:50:15 AM
To be fair, that's a heritage trolley that has few to no amenities at any of its stops, so the rolling stock and station costs are both lower than what we would probably want here outside of the downtown circulator. That said, it's much closer to what we'd be looking at than a light rail project or even Seattle's $30 million a mile cost.
I've seen the Little Rock system but the group I was with wanted to see the Clinton Library more than ride the trolley and there wasn't time for both. At least I got them on the trolley in Memphis. I chose the Little Rock system because I too think it's more like what we would need than a full blown light rail system.
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 15, 2014, 11:40:28 PM
The rail line between DT and BA has always looked inviting, but as a single line it would only be useful, just my thinking as an inbound in the mornings and outbound in the evenings, but just doesn't seem doable, and I wonder what the freight carrier on that line thinks of sharing.
I believe that is how the New Mexico Rail Runner got started.
http://www.nmrailrunner.com/maps/rail-runner-system-map